Wikipedia talk:Editor activity indicator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, but I would prefer some sort of indication that people have found this useful before I waste server resources saving a new revision every time I log in or out. r3m0t ^talk 10:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think the effect on servers would be negligible, though WP:RC might be a mess without the edits being marked as minor. Mark 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the reasons for having the "I'm around" indicator was so that users did not have to constantly change between "I'm in" and "I'm out." I doubt the system would ever gain enough users to actually cause a problem with the servers, but we could certainly ask the developers. -- Essjay · Talk 00:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I find this a hugely inconvenient way of doing things, since it involves doing the new edit every time you log in and out. Would it be possible to develop a tool that could automatically detect whether you're logged in, and/or the time when your last edit was made? - ulayiti (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah if you're a programmer who wants to tinker around. Is it really so hard to change it from "In" to "Out"? And by the way R3m0t, yes I have found it very helpful as it helps me help out the newbies, and they don't waste their time when I'm out, but when I'm in I can help them in under a minute. Redwolf24 20:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No it's not that hard, but it's easier to not have to do anything, plus it definitely does mess up the edit history of your page, and what if you forget? Much better and more effecient and easier to have it automatically update (even just to say "this user was last active XXX minutes/days/years ago" (by active I mean when was their last edit). --User24 13:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a nice idea. However, I do not think it need become a guideline (and certainly not policy). It's the sort of thing that self-publicizes by seeing it on some userpages and may or may not be adopted by other users. In/out can already be determined with reasonable reliability by checking someone's contributions list. Newbies don't know that, but to create it to a guideline or whatever would be instruction creep, imo. Just announce occasionally on the Village Pump that these images/templates exist, and maintain the instructions in your (Essjay's?) user space. In fact, I think a better place for this discussion would be the VP; it will get more publicity and that is a forum more suited to things that are user-spacey. -Splash 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want it to be policy; there are plenty of things that are explained in the Wikipedia namespace that aren't policy. I stuck the "proposed" tag on the top so nobody would scream about adding things without discussion. Instruction creep only applies to things that are manditory; by definition, optional services cannot be instruction creep, they fall under Creeping featurism. As I've seen it used on Wikipedia, however, instruction creep refers not to unncessary policy, but proposals where there is no valid reason for opposition outside an appeal to instruction creep. This proposal is for those who want to use it, period. If you don't like it, then don't use it. -- Essjay · Talk 21:46, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: the only reason I commented was because I do not think that this belongs in Wikipedia: space in Category:Wikipedia proposals (nor really in Wikipedia space at all). If it's not a guideline or a policy (or a proposal for such etc.) it belongs elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for the implication of the tag on prject page. But I said I think it's a nice idea, I thought I'd suggest reasons why it shouldn't be in W: space, and suggest alternatives where it might receive more attention. My comment was not the baseless opposition you suggest: it was not opposition at all. -Splash 22:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest your opposition was baseless; I meant to suggest to others who might read the discussion that this particular item does not conform to either 1) the legit definition of instruction creep or 2) the colloquial definition on Wikipedia (i.e., I don't like it and I don't have a reason, so I'll call it instruction creep). My intent was for it to be a resource for other editors, a handy feature; if it isn't, then list it at VfD. Now, I'm going back to my wikibreak. -- Essjay · Talk 22:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)