UESPWiki:Community Portal/Maintenance Guidelines

Are there any? Or is a just a convenient   Rpeh made so he could basically delete a page without any discussion.

I have a hard time assuming any good faith here because:
#The page had been edited three days ago by Shikishima, a major part of the FCOM team.
#There was absolutely no attempt to contact the FCOM team, even though they're on the Bethesda boards everyday with a clearly marked thread.
#There is no discussion on the page about deletion.
#There is no discussion here about deletion, or about a maintenance policy.
#The page he links to has a "Last Updated" signature at top of May 19, 2009... while there have been 28 edits since on the UESP page since that time.


Is this acceptable behavior on UESP now? Do I need to worry that the entire Cobl section will be gone tomorrow because I haven't updated it for the same amount of time? (And if it must be said - because I haven't released a new Cobl, I've run terribly short on time, and I rely on the modders who use it to tell me if there's a problem, as they have in the past.)

--Haama 00:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

: I didn't delete the page, I linked it to a more appropriate location so stop overreacting.
: The reason I blanked it is precisely because of Shikishima's edit. It removed a section of data from the page and nobody in the patroller team has any way of checking the information is correct. Previously, Wrye would have been around to keep things accurate and up to date, but since he announced his departure, none of the site staff is involved in pages like this. Even Dev Akm, who kept the page in decent order, hasn't edited in over a year. You have never edited the page until today.
: Several of your 28 edits to the page in the past year have been maintenance edits, including two people reverting edits just like Shikishima's on the suspicion of vandalism. Were they correct? Should the information have been deleted? Is the page more or less accurate because of these reversions?
: It's not up to me to contact the FCOM team. If you want to keep your pages on this wiki, it's up to you to keep them up to date and to maintain an account here. If you're worried about other people deleting your content, perhaps you should host it on your own server?
: If you're going to keep the page up to date, with proper edits made with decent edit summaries, then fine. If it's going to turn into an out date list that's of no help to anybody, then it should go. rpeh  06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FCOM Editing
The FCOM Team haven't been able to contact dev_akm for several months, which means the FCOM Homepage is currently out of our control. We have no access and it's badly out of date.
 
For these reasons it was a very unsuitable place to move it to.

The info on  the wiki page itself is pretty much accurate,and rarely needs amended.

It would have been a good idea to contact the current minders of FCOM to inform us of your intentions instead of the page simply disappearing.
Close to 35,000 downloads in the last eight months with a couple of major updates in between certainly doesn't sound like the mod is dead.

We can be contacted through the Bethesda ES modding forum where there's always a current thread.
The team members are also listed in the credits if you'd prefer a PM approach to us.

Shikishima 09:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

: As I said above, it's not my responsibility to contact you. I see a page where content is deleted from time to time with no explanation, and whose main editors are no longer active. Since no active editors apparently remained, and nobody else knew anything about it, it made sense to me to redirect users to a page where the information was fixed and not vulnerable to wiki vandalism.
: If you want to keep the page, please make sure it's up to date, and please provide proper edit summaries when making changes. rpeh  10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::So wait, let me get this straight: you consider lack of proper summaries to be a cause for unilaterally deleting a page without any attempt whatsoever to determine what the nature of that change was? Really?
::DragoonWraith 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::: That was not what he said. It was a simple reminder about providing proper edit summaries when editing a page that nobody on the UESP knows anything about. Please do not turn this into a heated discussion and please, avoid the personal attacks - it will get you nowhere. And no, we do not have the time to contact you guys every time an edit is made to the page and if our patrollers can't mark it as patrolled, then it might be a better solution to make the link.  --Krusty 21:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:::: For the last time, I did not "delete" the page. I changed it to a soft redirect, because a page where it's impossible to distinguish between vandal edits and serious ones is no longer a page that is high-quality enough to host on UESP. rpeh  21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::::: Okay, so what about going half-way and adding a   notice to the top with a custom message indicating that very few editors can vouch for the information it contains?  ‒ Robin Hood    23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::: No compromise is necessary. This has been a massive overreaction on the part of the FCOM "team". I took what I thought was the best decision based on the last twelve months' worth of edits, and instead of a simple undo with an explanatory edit summary, Haama decided to explode over the CP instead.
:::::: I have no problem with the FCOM pages being kept here, but the FCOM team need to appreciate that this isn't their site. It's not a place for vanity pages, it's a place for accurate, researched information. If nobody from that team is prepared to keep an eye on the pages then, frankly, they should be deleted. It's part of the deal: you use UESP to host your documentation instead of shelling out for your own server - you keep the information accurate. You implicitly ask our patrollers to watch over your pages so it's only fair that you follow the most basic guidelines of the site.
:::::: If any of this is a problem for the FCOM people, then I'll be starting a deletion review for these pages because it's pretty obvious that they're more trouble for us to maintain them than they are of benefit to UESP users. rpeh  23:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Actually we do maintain the pages if required and refer mod users to it on the Bethesda Boards in the Official FCOM thread.
:::::::This was the first amendment to it we've found necessary in many months. 
:::::::So what exactly is the procedure to keep it "live" if we don't make unneeded alterations?
:::::::Shikishima 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::::You would do well to appreciate that this isn't your site, either. A Wiki is inherently a group effort and no action, particularly the wholesale removal of an entire page worth of content, should be taken unilaterally and without warning. UESP has rules about Consensus that you have grossly violated (in particular: "Some cases where consensus is generally needed beforehand are [...] deletion of more than half a page"). These are UESP's rules.
::::::::As long as we're talking about rules, we should also consider those rules which ''don't'' exist. You have demonstrated no specific rules regarding the maintenance of pages; no where do I see a rule stating that a page's topic must be on a subject for which one of the Patrollers can vouch. Does it exist? Is it a criterion for deleting a page (don't argue semantics with me; removal of all content is close enough to deletion for the purposes of this discussion - a true deletion can be undone too, even if it takes more work, and the ability to revert the removal has nothing to do with the initial decision to do it)? Does it somehow overrule the previous criterion of having a consensus on the matter?
::::::::If you have no one who can mark those edits patrolled, and this is a requirement for any article (though, as I mention above, as far as I can tell, it isn't), you should seek one, methinks. Shikishima seems like an excellent choice, being the primary caretaker (as I understand it) of FCOM at this point. Removing the page simply because you don't know if it's being edited properly, having taken absolutely no action whatsoever to determine whether or not it was, is so heavy-handed as to be absurd. You haven't offered any explicit rules broken by the page regarding maintenance, even when specifically asked for such. Honestly, the only thing required in this case would have been a reminder to Shikishima asking for appropriate edit summaries.
::::::::I can fully understand that you could not tell whether the FCOM edits were kosher or not. The appropriate response would have been to start a discussion on the page, or here, or anywhere, rather than unilaterally deciding that it violated some non-existent protocol. The first step, I would think, should have been a comment in Shikishima's Talk page, asking by what authority those edits were made. Or a comment in the FCOM page's Talk page. Going to the ESF, finding the FCOM page, and learning who was in charge of it may have been more than you can be expected to be responsible for - but certainly would not have been difficult.
::::::::I'm not part of the FCOM team (nor is Haama, for that matter), I simply find this action distasteful from the perspective of someone heavily involved in the Elder Scrolls community. This wiki is much larger, much more organized, and much better patrolled than I am used to, but I know what I would have done in this situation if it came up on the TESCS Wiki, and considering that I am one of maybe half a dozen people who contribute there regularly (and probably the only real Patroller these days), as opposed to your relative army of Patrollers, the fact that you could not take the time to do this the right way is something I find deeply disturbing. I wouldn't have had the luxury of others to discuss such a decision with, and it bothers me that you waste it.
::::::::It was your choice to instead take action without any prior warning or discussion. If you cannot understand why this is viewed poorly, I have to question how well you understand the concept of a Wiki.
::::::::DragoonWraith 05:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::If you're trying to tell me that any of you were watching the article's talk page, my reply is that I don't believe you. Three of you have stated that I should have contacted the FCOM team through the Bethesda forums, which suggests that it's certainly not me who doesn't understand how a wiki works. Starting a discussion on the site would have been equally pointless. The last edit to the page had gone unpatrolled for three days - a sure sign that nobody knew what to do with it. Lastly, posting on the talk page of a "red" user (one with no user page) about their first ever edit has rarely proved useful in the past. 
:::::::::My comments about deletion are not arguing semantics: it's an important point. My thoughts while blanking the page were that if anybody really was monitoring the page, they could simply undo the edit; had I deleted the page (something I can't in fact do), only an administrator could have undone it. As I have said before, I took what I considered to be the most appropriate action given the recent history of the page. It's precisely because I know people use the page that I didn't just propose it for deletion.
:::::::::There's no official rule about patrollers being able to vouch for a page's content, but the topic has come up several times before in discussion. UESP prides itself on accuracy and if accuracy can no longer be guaranteed, then deletion is always an option if the pages in question are not central to the site. This has happened several times before with pages such as Custom Classes and Gripes, and might happen again soon with pages such as Roleplaying and even Useful Spells (see the above topic on that very subject).
:::::::::You question how well I understand the concept of a Wiki. Well one of the concepts is to be bold when editing. I took sensible, considered actions in good faith and I am sick and tired of being insulted by people who have done little to help this site. If you're going to keep the page up to date, then that's the end of the matter. rpeh  06:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::It doesn't matter what you believe about the Talk page: that is the protocol of this Wiki, and no one would have had any complaint about what was done if that had gone ignored. I don't know if anyone watches it. It really doesn't matter. I specifically stated that going to the ESF may have been above and beyond - but it wouldn't have been hard. The point remains that your actions are specifically against the rules.

::::::::::Wiping the page and deleting are equally unacceptable according to the rules. Yes, there's a difference in how it's undone, but again, for the purposes of this discussion, that's not relevant. The issue is not so much that the page was wiped - it's that it was done unilaterally and without warning. Again, there are rules for this kind of thing, and you broke them.
::::::::::And even if there was a specific rule about Patrollers having to mark edits (which you admit there ''isn't), that does not (or ought not) supersede the requirement for consensus on any action of this form. Hence, this discussion.
::::::::::Yes, "being bold" is a maxim of the Wiki. Which is why the consensus guidelines exist. Those rules are there specifically for the purpose of determining when it is not appropriate to "be bold", because discussion is needed.
::::::::::I accept that you acted in good faith, considering how important you consider the distinction between wiping the page and outright deleting it. However'', my response is to your breaking the rules, which you have done. Furthermore, it's the rule I consider most important to a Wiki, and I'm horrified that it would be ignored, especially for something so important, especially by someone who has put so much into this Wiki.
::::::::::So now you have to explain to the FCOM team what is required for the page to be "maintained". Proper edit summaries, for one. A userpage for Shikishima stating that she's in charge of FCOM? Her joining the Patrollers, or some special "Patroller of FCOM pages"? Something along those lines? Or what? This is the discussion you should have had in the first place. As you might have guessed, Shikishima is not overly familiar with Wikis - the first response to this was "Oh god, we've lost the Wiki page; is there any way to get it back?" Explanation would have been appropriate here - wiping the page only caused for anger and confusion, and was unnecessary. So, now that we've gotten past the unnecessary anger and frustration, get on with the explanation.
::::::::::An apology would not be out of place, either.
::::::::::DragoonWraith 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::: I agree that you should apologise for the personal attacks and insults thrown against me. Beyond that, I can't be bothered with this argument any more since you obviously aren't listening. rpeh  14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::That ''you broke the rules'' is not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. That the rule in question is the most central to the concept of a Wiki is also a fact. That I am disgusted by it is a personal observation. It is also a fact that your seeing absolutely no wrong-doing of any kind in any of your actions is further repulsive to me. How on earth did you become an admin? I don't care how many edits you have, if you would wipe an entire page of content for no reason whatsoever (at least that had any basis in the actual rules) with no discussion whatsoever (explicitly against the rules), this clearly indicates that you don't deserve that privilege.
::::::::::::DragoonWraith 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::He isn't an admin and he didn't break the rules. Krusty, who already warned you not to make personal attacks, is an admin. That means you have had one unofficial warning so you should probably go away before you get an official one for calling Rpeh's actions disgusting and repulsive (hyperbole much?). Rpeh is a well-respected editor who has given you several reasons for his actions. You are prolonging this debate in a very unhelpful way. If I was Rpeh I would propose the FCOM pages for deletion to really shut you up. 173.236.150.40 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(going back left) Yes, he did break the rules. I showed you them: you cannot delete more than half a page's content without consensus. Consensus is impossible without any discussion, and there was none. He broke the rules. I'm relieved to hear he isn't an admin, because his attitude and his actions clearly demonstrate that he has not even remotely the maturity or the attitude to be trusted with any such responsibility. That said, considering he claimed he could have deleted the page, he clearly has some form of special privileges, which he clearly does not deserve, in my opinion.

Proposing the FCOM pages for deletion, or even deleting them, would be spiteful, ridiculous, underhanded, out-of-line, and pointless. It would be a clear and obvious attempt to get back at me for my opinion of him, and again, would be so incredibly petty that I doubt even rpeh would go there. Most notably because ''I have nothing to do with FCOM and it wouldn't affect me in the slightest.'' I've never even bothered with OOO, much less FCOM. That would be lashing out at third parties because he can't get at me. Like I said, petty.

Repeatedly I have asked for clear and consistent guidelines for what is asked for on the FCOM page. I have not heard them. In fact, it's rather clear that there was nothing wrong with the page in the first place - rpeh just felt like flexing his authority, I suppose. The pages broke no rules, but rpeh did.

I realize that my temper may have gotten the better of me and I possibly have made public opinions that the administration would prefer I keep to myself, but frankly, rpeh's attitude deserves it. It is notable that I'd never even heard of him until the other day, and already my opinions are what they are. Were I him, I would take this as a sign that I might want to reconsider the way I put myself forward, if this is the first impression that people get.

At any rate, I welcome any particular response to my statements from Krusty or any other admin, as I realize that no matter how accurate or deserved my comments may have been, they were out of line, and I do apologize to them for that. But I also call on the same administration to make it known exactly what is and isn't acceptable here. For instance, I want it made clear whether or not the consensus rules are, in fact, rules. I want it made clear exactly what, if anything, is necessary for the FCOM pages to be considered "maintained", and if there's some kind of idea among the editors that having someone to patrol those edits is a requirement, I'd like to see that added to the rules. 
DragoonWraith 17:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:(e/c) This discussion is in no way going as it should. First person to continue along these accusatory lines is up for an official warning. I find it distasteful that the very first post was as accusatory and cynical as it was. If you feel an edit was wrong you're correct to bring it up, and you are even free to tell us your dissatisfaction with it, but this is clearly not the way Etiquette describes it.

:Next up, there are no "rules". We work with a system of guidelines here, meaning that people are free to act as long as they show they follow the principles of the wiki. Thus, all guidelines are subjective to interpretation to some point. A single person can never state for "fact" that someone violated policy. Only a community's consensus can decide upon that, which clearly isn't the case here.

:rpeh's edits on this wiki are commonly supported by the rest of his community, so his successful Patroller election shows. To look at the bigger picture, several editors have tried to improve the quality of all articles in general over the past few months, as can be seen by looking at the recent Deletion Reviews. Therefore I think it's very reasonable to assume that the edit in question is part of this trend, so I see no ground to not assume good faith. --Timenn-  17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:: I cannot believe the scale of the ovvereaction here. Rpeh made a decision and has fully explained the thinking behind it. No harm has been done and the page is back. The level of vitriol that has been seen since then has been ridiculous and way out of proportion for such an unimportant mod. If this is the way these people are going to behave on the wiki, I think it would be much more sensible to delete the FCOM pages until they learn how to be civil. 173.236.150.40 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:::A. FCOM is arguably the most important mod there is. It's certainly the biggest and certainly the one most requiring accurate documentation. Forum threads are poor for this purpose, where a Wiki is quite suitable. Hence, that page. Especially considering that the FCOM homepage is currently unaccessible.
:::B. I am not in any way involved with FCOM, I merely saw the update regarding the Wiki and have sought answers to why what happened, happened. I have still not gotten them, barring rpeh's extremely vague and nebulous assertations that the page was not being properly maintained, in the absence of even guidelines for what maintenance entails. My civility or lack thereof has nothing to do with them; I'm merely infuriated by what I've seen here.
:::C. You are an anonymous IP account who has posted exactly twice ever on this Wiki, both here. Without getting embroiled in another argument, suffice to say I'm not taking your comments particularly seriously.
:::DragoonWraith 18:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::::And I would argue that rpeh's actions have not followed the the principles of the Wiki. But never mind; I'm not going to convince anyone of anything. I'll keep my opinions of him to myself.
::::I still have heard nothing about what is necessary, or not, for the FCOM page to be considered "properly maintained". This information has been requested from the very first comment, and thus far has not been offered in any form whatsoever.
::::DragoonWraith 18:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::A. I don't know anybody who uses it, and judging by the relatively low number of downloads, it can't be that important.
:::::B. Edit Summaries and accounts that state on their user pages that they are involved with the project - he already said that all it needs is some way to distinguish between vandal edits and serious ones. Your infuriation is your problem and your lack of civility is entirely relevant because a bullying and insulting attitude demonstrates the lack of any substance in your accusations.
:::::C. IP addresses change, and you should read the Etiquette policy before you get a warning for breaching that one too. You already said you don't care how many edits rpeh has made, so why bring the figure up now? And your own contributions are hardly extensive in any case. 173.236.150.40 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 

::::::  I'm willing to accept that the bit mentioned in the first part of the page is just a section of FCOM. I actually do seem to remember reading something a while back about other sections somewhere.
::::::B. Your civility is a problem. Violating the policies of this wiki is grounds for an official warning and if you persist a block. You have now been warned several times about this. If you persist disciplinary actions will be taken. 
::::::C. You seem to have violated policy again here. Our Etiquette policy states that IPs are to be treated with respect and their opinions to be taken seriously. As for your point about edit counts you started with no edits and then added to that number, as did every other user on the site. Also why has edit count suddenly started to matter to you?--       19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In no way do I wish to get involved in a dispute here.

Being new to editing the wiki pages I've neglected the normal procedures. For that I apologize. I know better now and assure you that it wont happen again.

Quite simply all I want is to ensure nothing similar happens in future and make certain this information is retained here and available to our users.

I ask once again for the correct procedure  without doing constant amendments that are unnecessary. It could quite conceivably be another 12 months before another update is required. In that time span I don't want it to be assumed the pages are unmaintained or neglected, or considered for  movement or deleted.

As for new content, have you actually read anything about what FCOM involves?

BTW DragoonWraith, I'm  male.

Shikishima 19:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:I'm not going to argue the importance of FCOM; that's a purely subjective statement in any case. I would rate it highly among the most important mods, personally, and I was referring to the entire package including its constituent mods, but that's not important. The rest of my statement - that it is massive and difficult to install - still remain. There is a reason that the page was used. But really, this is entirely besides the point. There have been no clear guidelines as to what is necessary for "maintenance". I was the one who suggested that Shikishima's user page include something about running FCOM. And my original comment was that surely a page shouldn't have been wiped solely because of some missing edit summaries. Or maybe it should have - can you show me the guideline that states this to be the case? If not, I suggest it be added to them. And in any case, again, I need information about what is necessary.
:As for the rest of your complaints, you are correct, I missed the rule regarding IP accounts, etc. I'm going to just not respond at all to that issue since any response whatsoever only seems to get worse.
:Shikishima: Sorry about that. Not sure where I got the idea otherwise.
:DragoonWraith 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 

::I'm also not going to argue the importance of FCOM - Although now that Shikishima has responded I did a better search of my memory banks and agree that it's a quite important mod.--       20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, I hadn't intended to get back into this, but since it's still going on and has even made it to the pages of UESPWatch, let's try to get this finished.

If it makes it easier for some people to move on, I'm sorry I blanked the damn page. I have already explained that it was done with good faith and with the intention of making accurate information easier to find, but I'll apologise anyway for the sake of a quiet life. All that I want is a way for us, the regular patrollers and staff of UESP, to make sure the information is accurate. If Shikishima is volunteering for the role, then may I suggest you create a userpage that says so, register an email address and add it to your watch list? If not, then can anybody involved in the project make sure they use proper edit summaries when making changes?

Lastly, I would request that people who don't regularly edit this wiki don't steam in and start making the kind of accusations they have made in this case.

Are these suggestions something you think you can live with? rpeh  20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:If one of the FCOM team is monitoring the page, maybe the best solution would be to post a note on the talk page, an HTML comment, or even a Notice banner to that effect. Something like "This page is regularly monitored by so-and-so. Please contact so-and-so on their talk page (or by e-mail if the person registers one) in the event of any concerns with the page content." Just a thought.  ‒ Robin Hood    20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::I've told myself I wouldn't get involved in such heated arguments while I'm pregnant, but here goes:
::Edits are made to pages, most of the time, with the best interest of the readers in mind.  I can understand rpeh's thought process; "A bunch of stuff has been deleted... how do I know if it should have been?... how do any of us know who knows what they're talking about when they're editing this article?... hey, maybe we'll just link to their official website, since we don't know for sure that anyone's monitoring this article."
::Although this action was perhaps a little extra bold, this is a wiki, and that's one of the reasons I like it; you can make bold decisions and actions, and then if someone disagrees they can revert it and begin a discussion.  That's the problem here, it wasn't just a discussion that was begun, it was an accusation of ill-intent.  If someone had responded to rpeh's soft redirect with the comment, "Hey, I'm watching/maintaining it!  How can I let y'all know who's maintaining it?", then there would have been no conflict at all.  To automatically assume malicious intent is assuming bad faith, as well as being just plain rude.  Please, everyone, consider what might have happened differently if you had just spoken (typed) a little more politely.  --GK  23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've created a user page and also added a footnote to the end of page one. If I've neglected to do or missed anything - or if others have suggestions - let me know and I'll follow up.
Thanks for the help and apologies for the ruckus all this may have caused.
Shikishima 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

: Thank you for volunteering to take care of the page. You've only created your talk page so far: you need to create a page here for your userpage, but even the talk page you have made will be helpful. Please could you also add a proper link to the thread you mention on your talk page? I know threads expire after a while on the forums, but that will be a useful check to see if the page is really being maintained. If you need help with any wiki action, ask on my talk page or ask any other mentor. Thanks again. rpeh  23:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Maintainers
Since this seems to have moved to a conclusion after way too much argument, let's work out a better way of doing it for the future.

I don't like this way of noting who is watching a certain set of pages, but I think the concept is worth exploring. For mods, a list of accounts - UESP accounts, I mean - that are watching a certain set of pages would be very helpful. The Midas Magic and COBL pages as well as the FCOM pages are no-go areas for most patrollers, and it would be useful to know who you can go to where there's a questionable edit. How about we list a set of UESP users, followed by external emails/forum addresses than are "interested" in maintaining certain sets of pages? I'd have no problem adding myself to the Tamriel Rebuilt and Stirk pages, and I know a couple of other interested editors too. I'd love to hear names for the other pages.

This entire clusterfrack got started because for some of our pages there's no way of distinguishing between a vandal and a serious editor without going off-wiki in ways that most patrollers will not have time to pursue. At this point, we hit a difference of opinion: a typical wiki editor would say that it makes more sense to delete the offending pages rather than host inaccurate content, while a typical mod writer would ... well... have a different opinion; I'm not going to speak for them. If we have a list of people to contact at the bottom of the "home" page for a mod, then patrollers will know who to contact in the event of possibly inaccurate modifications being page. By contact, the best option would be a UESP talk page. If not that, then "some forum somewhere", I mean a direct link - and it that means somebody on the project needs to keep a forum link up to date, then so be it. We would then need some policy to deal with cases where none of the people on the list respond... but that can probably wait right now.

We already have site policy on what mods should and should not be described here. Unfortunately, there's a rule that we missed: "if the description of a mod becomes out of date to the point where it is misleading to users, the pages become eligible for deletion". I had considered that rule to be self-evident, but it seems that it needs spelling out. rpeh  00:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:Robin hood mentioned a few, more invisible ways of marking the maintainer - an HTML tag or place the note on the Talk page. The list would be preferable, though; perhaps on the patroller page, or a separate "Namespace Maintainers" page. The notifications directly on the page seem like warnings (which even protected pages don't have); however, the note on the bottom of the page seems more like a footnote than a warning and probably won't intimidate legitimate editors.

:"No-go areas" - I'd hope they're not considered that way. It looks like I owe a huge thanks to Elliot for updating the WryeMusings links for the Cobl pages, along with others.

:"Out of date" - Is not exactly the same as "misleading to others", as Shikishima pointed out. I noticed there are "Needs Maintance" tags - how do these work (do causal editors tend to use them, or just patrollers) and would they be a better start for determining "out of date"?--Haama 18:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Actually, at the risk of being immodest, although Elliot changed many of the Wrye Musings links, it was me who noticed and suggested the best way of making the change See - I'm not always hostile to mods! ;-)

:: The Needs Maintenance tags tend to point out specific problems rather than acting as permanent markers, although there's no reason why we couldn't create a new one.

:: I just thought of one possibility: a ModInfo template to complement the   template used on all the main pages for each game. A mod version could also list the setting as well as dependencies and other requirements as well as a list of contacts. Does that sound like a plan? rpeh  18:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:::I love the idea of a ModInfo template.  --GK  19:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Ditto. I think that's a great idea, rpeh.    ‒ Robin Hood    20:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:::"List of contacts" - ah, plain sight, the most invisible of all. Fair enough.
:::Template - ah, ok, it pops up at the side, that should work. Setting = game? Some other fields: FAQ, Readme, Relz thread, Download(s), Logo (Midas Magic has one). The Cobl template divides these into External Links and Subtopics - Readme, Relz thread, Downloads would always be external, FAQs can be either/or, and subtopics would basically be an expandable (# of links) mini-portal. (More of an idea-dump than I'd intended... will need to think of this again tomorrow.)--Haama 20:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::::The current   template has fields available for up to four images, the setting (which is the location the game takes place; Cyrodiil, Shivering Isles, etc.), the time period in which the game takes place, the developer, the release date, and the platform the game is available on.  The images, setting, time period, and developer would be applicable on the Modinfo template.  The release date and platform aren't really applicable, since there's not usually a defined release date and all mods are PC.  I'd think we'd add fields for the game that it mods, a download link, the latest version number, any mods that are required to run that particular mod, an FAQ link, a link to the readme, a link to the latest discussion thread, and a list of contacts that monitor and maintain the article.  Granted, I don't do much with mods, so everyone else feel free to make suggestions of fields that wouldn't be needed, or other fields that would be needed.  This is just what I'd expect to find if I was looking for info about the mod on the UESP.  --GK  02:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've made a start:  . Please feel free to suggest more fields. rpeh  16:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)