Parma/Medina/Ottawa

[SCPD]

City of Parma / Ottawa County (Project 25) RID/UIDs - The RadioReference Wiki needs to be renamed so it matches the RRDB listing Parma / Medina County / Ottawa County (P25) Trunking System, Parma, Ohio - Scanner Frequencies . The DB entry shows no wiki since the name changed.

 

[ka3jjz]

This has been handled by Ibagli - thanks....Mike

 

[SCPD]

OK thanks!

 

[QDP2012]

Thanks

City of Parma / Ottawa County (Project 25) RID/UIDs - The RadioReference Wiki needs to be renamed so it matches the RRDB listing Parma / Medina County / Ottawa County (P25) Trunking System, Parma, Ohio - Scanner Frequencies . The DB entry shows no wiki since the name changed.

Thank you very much for mentioning this here in the Wiki forum! The related/children pages which share the system name also have been updated.

As requested in another thread, hopefully the DBAs can and will develop a "name-change or new-name" DB-report that will make it easier to identify these Wiki pages that become "disconnected" from the DB.

Until then, we all rely on each other to discover that a system was renamed, and then to either update the related Wiki pages or mention the change here, just as you did, so that the Wiki-page names can be resolved.

Thanks again.

 

[DaveNF2G]

This is DB suggestion, but relevant to this discussion. How about adding a checkbox to the Submit function that says, "Update requires change to Wiki"?

 

[QDP2012]

Thanks for the thoughtful and interesting idea, and I see your point.

A brief comment, so that I don't go too far OT and duplicate the conversation in the other thread that is in the DB forum...

This is DB suggestion, but relevant to this discussion. How about adding a checkbox to the Submit function that says, "Update requires change to Wiki"?

I think there might be a weak spot here, though, in that the existence of the check box in the DB-submission form:

• (1) would infer that the person making the DB-submission, also:
  • (A) has a valid working understanding of the Wiki, and
  • (B) has verified whether or not a Wiki-change is needed;
  
  and
• (2) that when unchecked, the box would be interpreted by the DBA as "submitter verified that Wiki action is NOT needed"
  instead of "submitter is unsure that a Wiki action is needed and therefore did not check the box".
  
  and
• (3) would not alert as many Wiki knowledgeable people as posting a message in the Wiki forum does, like this thread did.
  
  and
• (4) might cause the DBA to forget that he/she needs to check the Wiki anyway because a Wiki-change might have happened between the time the DB-submission (with the unchecked box) was submitted, and the time the DBA handled the DB-submission. (In the cases where that gap is days-long, many Wiki edits can happen, including ones related to the DB submission, whether those Wiki-changes were coordinated or uncoordinated with the DB-submission.)

From many posts in the forums, I believe that many people

• do not use the Wiki,
• are unsure what is in the Wiki,
• are less-than-comfortable with navigating the Wiki,
• and in some cases, publicly admit that they have abandoned the Wiki because what they contributed to it was later changed by someone else to their dissatisfaction.

Statistically speaking, I don't think we can assume that every person who submits data to the DB will check the Wiki, and even if they do check the Wiki, will notice every single thing that might need to be updated in relation to their DB submission..

I applaud anyone who does or would make the effort to ensure the Wiki is correct, as part of their process for submitting data to the DB Team, whether that involves starting a thread like this one to report a Wiki-change that is needed, or whether they make the change themselves.


But, I believe that someone who is comfortable editing the Wiki will need to review the Wiki in relation to DB-page name-changes, etc. because

• (1) every name-change in the DB effects the Wiki, or could
• (2) some of the nuances, and "hidden" elements, of Wiki-editing are not "obvious" until someone has spent sufficient time editing the Wiki, including REDIRECT pages and how to determine whether they should be kept or dropped, and the Templates that are used.

Thanks for the idea. It is an interesting one.

Hope this helps,

 

[DaveNF2G]

Thanks for the clear and detailed response. I see your points.

I have an alternative suggestion. Perhaps a selection of either "I am also updating the Wiki" and "I am not updating the Wiki"?

 

[QDP2012]

Thanks for the clear and detailed response. I see your points.

I have an alternative suggestion. Perhaps a selection of either "I am also updating the Wiki" and "I am not updating the Wiki"?

• I can see how that might fit better, but since the DBA cannot guarantee that the submitter will correctly update the Wiki, the DBA would still need to visit the Wiki (1) to at least ensure the submitter did correctly update the Wiki, or (2) to make corrections which the submitter did not attempt, or (3) (in worse case) to undo the submitter's mistakes and update the Wiki correctly.
  
  Because, the submitters' "Wiki skills" (across all of RadioReference) vary from none-to-expert, the DBA has no way of trusting that the submitter did everything in the Wiki that needs to be done, and in the way it needs to be done.
  
  Even those of us who regularly edit the Wiki make mistakes, and/or miss something. W9BU, ka3jjz, and others have patiently corrected things that I have missed or goofed-up, many times in the last several years. The Wiki is community-maintained. It helps to have multiple Wiki-editors verifying that everything is correct.
  
  
• Actually, as the Wiki has been improved in the last several years, some of the details of how DBAs edited the Wiki in the past (say 5 years ago) are now quite different in some respects, and yet the same in others. For example, templates are used much more now in certain ways than they were before.
  
  Some of the "behind the scenes" elements, like using templates, are what regular Wiki-editors will notice and help manually adjust accordingly, whether a particular Wiki-editor happens to be a DBA, a Wiki-Admin, or neither.
  
  
• I hope anyone who finds a problem in the Wiki, that they are not sure how to handle, will report it in this forum, just as the OP did with this thread, so it can be handled accordingly and not left to remain.
  
  
• I think DBAs will always need to evaluate the Wiki at some level when making certain DB changes. Hopefully, this won't overburden them.
  
  
  Just one opinion,

Thanks for the suggestions,