Help talk:Approval Process

Approval Schedule
Let's discuss how to do the approvals here. Do we want to do 2 days a week? 3 days a week? What times ? What days? First, let's see who's available to do this. I'm available most weekday evenings to do the approvals, and maybe discuss approvals the next morning. --Nesphit (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think more then 2 so 3. That way there isn't to much of a wait. If the Admin doesnt know the answer, note to another admin to take a look. And sure dag after review anyaay to ensure nothing seems odd. Like tailings I learnt new today about carts. I do think imo approval has helped with organizing and abuse proof with little effect. If the editor is upset something doesn't go through they can discuss with us and try to rectify or the reasoning. NOTE: I'm usually more cautious on none logged in edits. --Mahsaap (talk)


 * I think if we get 3 editors to do approvals, each one day a week, that would be ideal. I'll let someone else take first pick on what day they want to do it. For bigger and more contentious edits, there should be some discussion, definitely, and an editor can always choose not to approve an edit in order to defer or have more discussion.--Nesphit (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to get on when there are things needing approval but having a set day for me to get on is a little harder, Saturday is a definite no for me. At the moment I haven't seen much of an issue with the approval of pages. Normally only a handful of people changing things and they normally speak up about it and one of us jump on. --ZeelNightwolf (talk)


 * You may have noticed that I'm not around all too often these days. I do some things every once in a while when I find the time, but I'm definitely not able to dedicated myself any certain weekday. My job requires me to be way too flexible for that. I'm willing to randomly approve a few things when I'm around though. --CompactDisc7227 (talk)


 * Thanks for the input everyone! For now let's do approvals Monday, Wednesday, and Friday nights. I'll take any one of the three, Mahsaap can take another one, and the other one can be a "wildcard" night that an available editor such as Zeel or CompactDisc can take on. --Nesphit (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove Approval Process
This is the first and only wiki where I have ever seen edits needing approval. I think this need for approving page edits is a bad idea and is discouraging people from editing the wiki. I propose that the approval process be disabled.

A MediaWiki is already adding "not patrolled" to all non-admin edits, and admins can easily look through that list of edits and mark them as patrolled. If an admin find an edit to vandalism or totally wrong they can see if it anyone changed it back already or undo the edit themselves.

This is the process I have been working with on the 4 wikis I work(ed) on. I will confess that this wiki might be bigger thsn the ones I am used to, but it still looks and feels weird for you guys to use this process. - Deantwo (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind approval is supplied from gamepedia, so there are others that use it.


 * If information is correct and factual there is no reason to worry about not being approved. It's also always free for discussion. But as a note since approval has been added bot and abusive edits have dropped dramatically. And there are still occasionally edits that just dont make sense or need a slight change a this makes it easier to catch such edits and not get buried in the list.


 * Oh if it's an urgent change that would be brought up with the reason why. --Mahsaap (talk)


 * Dean, this is far from the only wiki that requires approvals for things. We chose to have an approval process because we wanted to preserve the quality of the wiki and reduce spammers. There have been some instances where inaccurate information on the wiki caused problems for support. As long as we have a speedy approval process, why would it discourage people from contributing? Their edits will be approved every 2 or 3 days. Do we really need to provide instant gratification?


 * I know some people might not think this is fair, and yes vandalism can be reverted, but we'd rather err on the side of bad information not even having a window of visibility.--Nesphit (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm on the fence. I like the idea of the community just being able to go for it and we just patrol and maintain BUT I do know that past issues are the reason we have the approval process. The reduction in spam is amazing but thanks to BOTs that job is easier now. --ZeelNightwolf (talk)


 * The eco community is not big enough to self-audit a game wiki, but maybe some day. We can always experiment releasing an article or two that change really often. Keeping an eye on a few pages shouldn't be too hard. Extra admins/moderators are always useful though. --CompactDisc7227 (talk)