As the admins know, and as most of you are aware, over the past couple weeks I have been overhauling and implementing new material and policies to the Bug Verification Project. These revisions were a part of the original course I had planned when I began the project, but just never got to them due to school and other time consuming activities. As a direct result, the project stalled and got backlogged along the way. In the past couple weeks I've managed to make a significant dent in the progress of the project, but I'm nowhere close to having things finished.
This proposal that I am putting forward will be for making several large and very changes to the integrity of the project, and to our general bug policy. I will copy and paste parts of the proposition section from my original bug policy revision in the Adminstration forum.
Proposition
There are really 2 types of bugs in the games, those that relate to Items, the Ingame Environment, and creatures. These types of bugs can happen at any point in the game, and are fairly easy to reproduce and prove or disprove.
The second type of bug is related to specific quests, characters, or points in the game. These are hard to reproduce, and take A lot of time to prove/disprove because it often requires multiple playthroughs and or returning to a previous save point.
Limmie and I have both discussed solutions to the problem of what I've come to call Verification Backlog. We think that in regards to this we should implement two solutions.
- First is that we should extend the verification time-frame on bugs relating to quests/specific points in the game from 2 to 4 weeks.This will give users a better time-frame in which they can attempt to reproduce these bugs.
- Second, we would like to extend/recruit/assign a specific group of people to help reproduce and prove/disprove bugs that are called into question. This is something that we would like to do after the New Year starts in order to have everyone we need on board from the start, and not be distracted by the chaos of the Holiday Season.
- This will also mean that I will go in and modify the Bug Verification project to reflect more as official policy. I also believe we should take a harder line towards bugs that are based on Items/Environment/Creatures and remove them when the time runs out, those bugs should not take a lot of time to reproduce, and should not sit on the Verification page for 2 weeks.
- Third Create and implement a Verified Template, the Platform template really doesn't play a good role as a verification tool, we need a definitive template that will indicate something has been verified. This will be the most sweeping change.
- Fourth and finally create a separate and viable page specifically for bug policies so that we can better cover and describe how they should be formatted, and what they should encompass. I can do this myself by using the Bug Verification Project page as a base template.
Because of the breadth of this proposal we will have 4 separate voting sections for each of the 4 Proposals.
---bleep196- (talk) 18:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
Extension of verification period from 2 to 4 Weeks
| ||||
Yes
I've always kind of thought the period short, after all, it's not likely for someone to verify one bug out of thousands in such a short period.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 
20:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
strikes me as a good idea. Richie9999 (talk) 21:20, January 29, 2013 (UTC)- I support this. A longer verification time means that bugs should have a greater chance of being verified before being removed simply because no one got to it in time. --Skire (talk) 21:22, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- The verification period is two weeks because a lot of people visit the site when a game first comes out. With that much traffic, not a lot of time is needed to verify bugs. As the game gets older and older, more time is needed, so I don't think a change to the time period is required. --Kastera (talk) 21:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Two weeks seems sufficient for verification, especially if now have a dedicated project for it. As Kastera said, new titles won't require more time due to the influx of users. nihil novi sub sole 22:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
No
Recruitment/Creation of users specifically dedicated to verifying bugs
| ||||
Yes
- I've done this myself on a couple of pages, and I think it's a good idea. Those that dedicate themselves should know that they'll have a lot on their plates.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 20:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Another solid idea. I try and check bugs that pop up as they show up when possible. Richie9999 (talk) 21:22, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Could make bug digging more reliable. --Kastera (talk) 21:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- An ad-hoc bug committee sounds good! --Skire (talk) 21:47, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Verification seems pointless if we aren't counting on trusted users to do so. nihil novi sub sole 22:53, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
No
Creation and implementation of a Verified Template
| ||||
Yes
- An excellent idea, the console icons aren't really that concrete as to whether or not there has been verification. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 20:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- This is a great idea in my book, lately, most of the times when bugs are added the person adding them adds the console tag without the verify tag, having something better for it would be perfect. Richie9999 (talk) 21:24, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd personally like to see what the 'verified' template would look like before were scrap the console template. There's no use in digging up a water main if you don't know where the leak is. --Kastera (talk) 21:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
No
- All items must be assumed true unless stated otherwise. If a bug is doubtful, use
{{Verify}}to get it verified. Another template for this purpose is completely unnecessary. --Skire (talk) 21:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
Creation of a separate and detailed page specifically dedicated to the Bug Policies
| ||||
Yes
- Sounds good to me.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 20:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- This is something we really need. I mean if we have a page for what qualifies as notable loot, why wouldn't we have one for bugs? Richie9999 (talk) 21:25, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- --Kastera (talk) 21:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
No
Additional Comments
About the second vote - would it be good to have like this:
- 3 people for FO1
- 4 people for FOT and FO2
- 4 people for FO:BOS (if there are any at all...)
- 6 people for FO3
- 8 people for F:NV
Of course, numbers can be modified, but is this what it had been in mind? Energy X 
19:51, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Well this is a vote just to initiate an effort for it. Once the vote concludes we will work out putting up a sign up sheet of sorts for the actual part of people volunteering to verify bugs. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:15, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
I will vote on these soon but I don't see the exact need for most of them to be voted upon. These are hardly changes to policy, but modifications in practice related to bugs. --Skire (talk) 21:20, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- To an extent yes, but what I am trying to do is get them set in stone as policy. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:23, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I see. Also, I noticed a few mentions of bug policy changing. I don't see any specifics about what policies will be implemented by this vote. What exactly do you mean by "This will also mean that I will go in and modify the Bug Verification project to reflect more as official policy." and "I can do this myself by using the Bug Verification Project page as a base template."? --Skire (talk) 21:40, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- That part was actually extracted from the Admin forum. Some of this was copy and pasted from the original post.---bleep196- (talk) 22:48, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I see. Also, I noticed a few mentions of bug policy changing. I don't see any specifics about what policies will be implemented by this vote. What exactly do you mean by "This will also mean that I will go in and modify the Bug Verification project to reflect more as official policy." and "I can do this myself by using the Bug Verification Project page as a base template."? --Skire (talk) 21:40, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
Items 2 and 3 don't need a vote. Get the word out for volunteers. And let's get that template made. I don't ask for a vote every time I make a new template to use. Let's just do it.
As for 1 and 4, we'll let the votes go, but 4 really should have had discussion first so we were voting on the actual new policies. I would recommend just rewriting this as a vote to change the time frame from 2 to 4 weeks and open another forum with your proposed new policy page for folks to look at, with a vote to follow after review. The Gunny 
21:51, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
Just a question for the verified template. Would this replace the platforms template, or could there possibly be a way to almost merge the two together? I fully support the verified template just also fell the platforms when they are present is equally important. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 21:58, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. A few things about a verify template. One, it would not replace the platforms template. The platforms template is there for a different purpose. Two, adding a verified template would ease management of bugs here. I understand Sig's point, but without something on previously verified bugs, we can easily have situations where people are verifying bugs already verified and wasting effort. A clear notice that a bug has been verified will avoid this.
- To this end, I just changed the verify template to check the unnamed parameter {{{1}}} to see if it's defined as |verified. If it is, it adds [verified], rather than checking the date and adding the verification categories. Please see User:The Gunny/sandbox4 for the revised template and User:The_Gunny/sandbox#Render for it in use. Comments? The Gunny 22:18, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to look at what happens with the bug policy with the next game. Listing minor to moderate bugs on day 1 of the next games release makes little sense to me as they're likely to get fixed with Patches (although I can perhaps see an argument for game breaking bugs)... After patches stop it makes a bit more sense. Any other thoughts on this? Agent c (talk) 22:22, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, most of the bugs that have staying value (in other words don't get fixed via patches because either A, the team can't find the source or B the bugs just aren't worth the effort to fix or C as you already mentioned the game breaking bugs) won't become apparent until after the first couple weeks. During those first couple weeks we are going to have to be patient and just assign verify's and wait for the patches to start. Once the patches start rolling out then we can really start on the verification process. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:56, January 29, 2013 (UTC)