Comments on Accepted UEP List

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:16 pm

As a clarification: the thing currently looks in titles for the character string "[UEP," if it doesn't find that it won't even look at the post. Later I will make it search for "[UEP, accepted".

Lord Leuber · Post by **Lord Leuber** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:44 pm

Hi Peter, it looks great. However, what about using the same format used by the CRF, ie listing the errataed cards in alphabetical order?

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:58 pm

Well, if everybody would add a category Cards/Affected_Card_name then that would be automatic (and I don't know another way to do it).

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:48 am

I've updated the script to use the Name entry instead of the title (when available) so that the title length limit is no longer a problem.

henrikbe · Post by **henrikbe** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:51 am

Eh, why is the "Flies and Spiders"-UEP listed as accepted?

Silk the Hand · Post by **Silk the Hand** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:48 pm

Nice Peter.
It's good to keep a list of the accepted UEP.

But, why repeat them in many categories? The Barrow Wight change is repeated 3 times!
I think it should be better to have them in only one category, the one that fit the best. So for exemple I would say to put Barrow Wight in the creature list is enought.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:13 pm

Henrik: I forgot to manually add a 'this is a test' marker.

Silk: Interesting idea, if more people like that I'll implement it that way (easy enough to do).

henrikbe · Post by **henrikbe** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:18 pm

OK.

I don't agree that one category pr erratum would be better. I may seem better at the moment, but if the number of errata gets big, it can be nice to have a simple way of finding all errata related to a given topic.

BTW it would be nice if you could indicate why the failed proposals failed...

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:58 pm

They failed because they made Ruby (scripting language) throw an exception. Usually that means my script didn't find an item it needed. Commonly that means you forgot the tags around categories, name or errata. If the proposal is formatted the same as the template then it's probably a bug in my code.

Almost all the currently listed failures don't use the tags around Name, Categories and Errata. I've just adapted the script a bit to cope with the Erratum entry as an alias for Errata.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 pm

The list is now updated with the REAL info. Mark, your proposal didn't get in because it uses tags instead of tags like in the template.

From now on please post a message in your proposals thread if it gets accepted, that will help me find accepted threads more quickly (the Modest Proposal was accepted a week ago but I only noticed today).

Post by **jhunholz** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:25 pm

I went ahead and changed Mark's i tags to b tags...so now why did it get rejected?

Post by **Gwaihir** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:28 pm

jhunholz wrote:I went ahead and changed Mark's i tags to b tags...so now why did it get rejected?

I guess it won't get rejected anymore now, but Peter probably just hasn't ran his script again yet.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:41 am

Yup. I'll update it when I get back home.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:29 pm

Updated. I've also updated the script to handle HTML escape codes correctly.

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:06 pm

I wonder if there is a better way of presenting the list? Its quite hard to follow at the moment. I appreciate the effort to have categories and that this is evolving, but do we really need them or just a list of card names? Or maybe just one category per UEP?