Category talk:Exploitable bugs

Such a long description seems inappropriate in a category page, and in any case the category might not be a good idea. Perhaps a broader "exploits" category which would include other things such as program vulnerabilities would make sense. Of course, the category would be combined with the bugs category in articles about bugs that can be somehow exploited or used to advantage by players. Who is like God? 09:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about separating the technical and "exploit" aspects of a bug into two articles? That sounds like a good idea (we definitely need more tactical articles).  UberDoomer, for some previous discussion of sorting large numbers of articles with a table vs. with categories, see here.    Ryan W 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, most bug articles are pretty short as they stand, so at most some could have exploit sections, in my opinion. I mean we could have a Category:Bugs and another Category:Exploits, and both would be applied to exploitable bugs. Maybe it's irrelevant though because all exploits are probably bugs too. Maybe we could add an info box to bug articles, however, including the info on the list (not to replace the list; just because that info is relevant to the articles). Who is like God? 07:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * most bug articles are pretty short as they stand, so at most some could have exploit sections  I thought that was what we were already doing...  :>


 * including the info on the list (not to replace the list; just because that info is relevant to the articles)  Usually, IIRC, the main argument for keeping the list is that it helps us to organize red links.  I'm glad to say that there are far fewer red links now than there were in 2006.  Therefore, if we had a bug info box, that argument would be less valid.  I personally would still favor keeping the list, because the tabulated information is harder for the reader to digest when distributed across 100+ articles.  I know that others disagree, however, saying that the tabulated information could be replaced by a combination of subcategories and more thorough technical prose.


 * Incidentally, since this has been brought up before: I would definitely not apply the above reasoning to the list of people. So far, we haven't even agreed on a notability standard, let alone how many people might qualify, which means that the fraction of red links is likely to remain large for quite a while.    Ryan W 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the list is good even if we add an info box, as it allows the reader to see all the bugs intelligibly in one place. We seem to agree about keeping the list, because in my opinion categories are an alternative browsing tool and should not restrict the articles even if some tables and such provide info that's similar to that of the categories. The info box would help the articles because it's always good to have an easy-to-read way to surmise each type of article; going back to the general list for this is hassle. ("Wait, was this bug critical, can it be exploited? Lemme go back to engine bug and see.") Who is like God? 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * categories are an alternative browsing tool and should not restrict the articles  Yeah, I seem to recall that the people at Wikipedia just finished some big usability study about that.  They concluded that categories are used far more often by bots than by human readers, who (for whatever reason) find them to be a clumsy method of navigation.    Ryan W 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)