Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

1st New Order Discussion thread.
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5861		 Page 4 of 8
Author:  TimothyC [ April 11th, 2015, 3:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
Gollevainen wrote:
there has been discussion over this, but no actuall policy, ruling or working practice of using the museum sofar.
This is incorrect. As a part of the rename project, the policy used was that the museum folder would be used for drawings that were either out of date and a replacement had been drawn (95%+ of all cases), or for situations where an existing drawing had significant issues that defied easy repair (the USN CVNs mostly).

That was the actual policy. It may not be the current policy, but a policy did exist.

At this point, my current recommendation to the staff is to wait for me to finish with checking the latest batch of drawings submitted for upload, and performing a nuke-and-pave with the known-correct files I've made publicly available as the pave.
Author:  Gollevainen [ April 11th, 2015, 7:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
Quote:
You gave the link to old rules.
Ah, no. The link you provided is mostly a collection of how to name the ships and ship classes by their definitions, they suplement the old rules but it didn't overwrite them. In general, only stuff posted by administrors would do so, and then there would be mention of this.
Quote:
actually, there is working practise, the team that cleaned up the archive in the past has made an museum folder as well
If thats the case, then im sure you can provide me a link to such folder?
;)

The thing is, that back when there were more staff, the were lot of intention to include the museum idea into the practice of uploading, but there were never a clear set of agenda nor rules of how the replacing files and redoing others work would actually work, who would decide what gets replaced and in with what grounds. The new rules revision project from this winter did finaly bring clarity to these issues, so therefore there is now more ground to actually procede in this issue and trying to make it actually work.

Since
Quote:
the team that cleaned up the archive in the past
and general atmosphere focusing around these things back then also managed to indulge themselves into various malpractices, missconductions and other reprehensible activity, that mostly necessitated and orginated the great purge, we cannot give much worth for that period in SB managment.

Idea in this new era of openness and communal decission making, we have lot better grounds to actually get the archiving methods work and clear to everyone, so if people have suggestions what they think needs to be done and suggestions of how to do things, perhaps a seperate thread somewhere would be more in place
Author:  acelanceloet [ April 11th, 2015, 8:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
Gollevainen wrote:
If thats the case, then im sure you can provide me a link to such folder?
;)
http://shipbucket.com/museum/

btw, I might be wrong but very little moderators were in at the 'clean-up team', so the great purge has IMO very little relation to this project.
Author:  eswube [ April 11th, 2015, 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
@Gollevainen
I believe that the "new filename rules" were revieved by Admins (or at least we were made to believe so) before being posted, not mentioning that You have posted a comment below them that is obvious "administrative" endorsment of them.
Author:  Gollevainen [ April 11th, 2015, 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
Quote:
I believe that the "new filename rules" were revieved by Admins (or at least we were made to believe so) before being posted, not mentioning that You have posted a comment below them that is obvious "administrative" endorsment of them.

yes they were, there are nothing wrong in them, it just that they cover the issues of naming the files so that it becomes clarified what ship the file is supposed to present. Other rules and quidelines of the actuall filenames in regarding how they work and produce workable filenames are still intact and covered in the original rules.
Specially in this case, this part still applies: DO NOT USE UNDERSCORES (_), PARENTHESES, PERIODS (.), COMMAS (,), QUOTATION MARKS, SPECIAL CHARACTERS (accent marks etc)

The above mentioned ones are usuall cases when filenames become corrupted or transfers themselves into unworkable links.
Author:  eswube [ April 11th, 2015, 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
Problem with "not using underscores" is that certain services do not allow use of "space" and replace them with those weird lines of letters and symbols (Majhost was an example of that) that are much more difficult to remove.
Author:  Gollevainen [ April 11th, 2015, 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
well the most proplematic characters are periods (.) they can cause corrupted filenames. Also all umlauts and wierd letters do that also. If you cannot get "pure" filenames from your host, just mention this during the uploading, its not hard to do manually, specially if the neglect has not been out of ignorance. If using Underscores helps to overcome those proplems, then I see no reason not to use them.
Author:  acelanceloet [ April 11th, 2015, 9:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
looking at the above 'problems' comma's actually work :P they can also be quite neccesary (for example DD 1955 5,5in gun type; leaving the comma out will modify the size of the guns quite a bit :P)
the above problem actually only comes from them being removed in one upload while this was not done in the other.
Author:  Gollevainen [ April 11th, 2015, 9:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
well the use of commas or speciall characters usually comes in question in with never-where's and such drawings that don't have spesific ship name, just some general project name or so. Then naturally ones purpose should always be getting most clear and simple file-names as possible, and thus it gives the artist lot of freeway to consider such themselves, and not to be that tied to the general procedures. I just hope everyone understands the principles of the file-naming procedure so that they can actually use their own judgement for the best results.

What comes to the different ways to do uploading, there I can only speak for my own methods, and its true, couple of uploadings before these recent ones have been done by someone else than me, so naturally I cannot always follow their logic to derivate from the common practices, despite how hard I've tried. In future I try to instruct possible other uploaders than myself so that these issues wont come proplems.
Author:  Hood [ April 12th, 2015, 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1st New Order Discussion thread.
Golly, I've added a couple of drawings to my last post. Just so your aware.
Page 4 of 8 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/