RationalWiki talk:Shrine

I don't it needs RW in the "title", shrine would be enough. ħuman 01:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose. Mind you we're just going to wind up renaming it to something more creative anyways. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 01:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Will anyone be really upset if I remove the ref to me? 02:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I won't. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No no at all. Delete at will.ħuman 05:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been done by divine intervention. All is good. ħuman 05:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, particularly as this is in the RW space now, the extrat RationalWiki is a little superfluous. ^theist 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo ideas

I'm bouncing around a few ideas for an image we can have at the top. I'll knock-up some themes and add them to the gallery in this post.

• 

  Grave theme. "We'll always have Skype"

• 

  Going along with ListenerX's temple theme

Alternatively I was thinking of something related to cryogenics or zombies. It's tricky to find PD images of those themes, but graves are pretty easy to find. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, given that this is a hall of heroes, perhaps something like this? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Or this? 16:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I think that ListenerX has a very good idea! Susan, I considered but avoided war memorials. I think what we do here is pretty worthwhile, I don't feel 100% right equating RW to veterans. ^{Ask me about your mother} 18:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm for whatever everyone else likes. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I like that LX one. ħuman 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'll knock-up some ideas based on that theme. ^{Ask me about your mother} 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I looked closer at the CR image, I like it, too. perhaps put that on LX image? I think a wide, short image centered across the top would be nice. Or, heck, we could litter the whole page with random funny lolgraves? ħuman 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've added a temple image, based on ListenerX's suggestion. It's a bit big right now, but I'm going along with Human's suggestion that it be wide enough to act a bit like the banner we have on the Saloon bar. I've only made a few tweaks, so what do you think? I've been looking for a way to RWify the figures on the frieze, but I'm not sure how to do that? I could add some graffiti to the temple, perhaps references to famous RWians and memes. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the image that's been added, but can we leave Andy out of this page? IE make a better caption? Hey, CR, anychance we could get a head on shot of that frieze w/the RW flag? so it's even wider and shorter? ħuman 21:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

List order

Should we alphabetize to minimize duplication and aid navigation? On another tangent, should we remove TK? ħuman 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I Agee with both. A shrine should be navigable and meaningful. ^{Ask me about your mother} 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

EC) Hah! Both in my mind. Alpha it, H: it's your sort of thing (& nix TK - a refuse tip'd be more appropriate for him than a shrine) 21:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done and done, I hope my concept of the alphabet was reasonably accurate. ħuman 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Get rid of TK per the guidelines I originally set up. Nobody actually misses TK! Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it, I alphabetized "TK" as "not part of this alphabet". ħuman 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Official curator

Do we really need one? This was originally in G-Punk's user space & relocated to RW, but still indicates he's in control of it. I'm sure this was meant with the best intentions, but the tradition is that nobody should have special editorial privileges over anything in shared namespaces (remember Felidae anyone?). If comments are removed are removed from the Shrine (as already happened with the Tokyo Rose section) it should be because of some level of consensus between a few users (as it was), not one person in charge. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with Goonie being the honourary curator, although accepting that no-one has any inherent control. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh, whatever. I just put myself as curator for the sake of figurative looks, as all shrines have a curator. I don't actually want or have any sort of control over this thing. But if you'd like to remove that tag, go ahead. I won't be upset. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 18:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the tag a bit so that it doesn't look like I have any real authority over this shrine. Does this eliminate the concern, or should I just get rid of the tag altogether? Conservative Punk (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comments

I can understand removing TK, but what was the rationale for removing Tokyo Rose and the discussion in that subsection? -- Nx / talk 13:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Seemed to be more about somebody's comment that she was (allegedly) a dude than about the original post. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought users' comments were inviolate. Did Human move the discussion anywhere after removing it from this page? -- Nx / talk 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with removing comments that are malicious or slanderous. My understanding is that the intention here is to keep things positive. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The posting was a poor joke in bad taste, and it's talk page comments that are "inviolate", although I know we are signing our additions to this project page. I can dig it out and copy it here if ye wish. ħuman 21:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Human, stop taking the rules to the letter rather than the spirit. My interpretation has always been that discussion should never be deleted. Mindless educated Hoover! 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm Ok with negative comments being removed. Just copy the removed bits somewhere if you feel strongly about it. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on pages like this are removable. They're still in the history if anyone's really interested. 22:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

(undent) I thought the Tokyo Rose stuff More likely to raise a smile or a Crying Game moment than cause offence. Haven't really got an opinion one way or the other on Tokyo Rose, but I'd think that comments aren't worth removing unless they're either totally off-topic or seriously negative. i.e. the "fuck off and don't come back" kind of stuff. Jokes about people seem fair to me, since that's the way things normally work around here. Yup, probably not a bad idea to slip a post on the talk page if something has been removed, in order to avoid the almost inevitable sparring. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For clarity and perhaps ease of reinsertion, this is what I removed:

Tokyo Rose

• Never really one of the in crowd, but we all had the hots for her. IndependantObserver (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Too bad she was a he [1] -- Nx / talk 18:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That just looks like Ken baiting. Mindless educated Hoover! 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall we remove? This page is srs bsnss! ħuman 03:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(end of paste) ħuman 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if someone puts it back, leave my comment off, please. ħuman 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, part of my reasoning for the removal was that it was put in by a one-edit new user. ħuman 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dishonorable mention section

Should we have one, since it sorta violates guideline #2 that only positive tributes should be in the shrine? I don't care if we do, but then, at least, we should get rid of guideline #2. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 01:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Narr: on the grounds of 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Trolls have added to the character and development of the place, and some of them deserve to be shouted out for the colour they brought with them. If you prefer, I can move Tits and Fall down and the password troll into the same section as, say, CUR, who could be as much of a troll/source of discord as anyone...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

CUR wasn't a troll, he genuinely meant well. ħuman 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, it violates the noble grounds on which this article was built. You could, however, sandbox up RW:Hell, and put them there. ħuman 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Fall down, it's just encouraging him to come back, as he does periodically. Re the rest of them, not really trolls, just pageblank/revert vandals. Scrap it. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It does go against the idea of this, and it kind of encourages trolls to try to get on to the "high score table". RWW maybe? ^{Ask me about your mother} 10:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the dishonorable mention section from the shrine, but I am making an alternative page for those who wish to dishonor "dead" trolls. Will post a link here after it is complete. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 05:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno about using RWW for it, but that might work. Goonz, do we really want a space for "people we hate who are gone"? Seems a bit nasty... ħuman 05:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I take back the "nasty" part, the section was sorta funny. Might make nice weird shrine, I dunno. ħuman 05:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

is this how we unshrine people?

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Shrine&curid=96793&diff=552525&oldid=547011

Seems like mass deletion to me. Why not archive? ħuman 07:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Try scrolling down the page when you look at difflinks. Nothing was deleted; only moved to the "cryonically reanimated" section, as per shrine guideline number 3. Archiving would probably be better, at least after a while, since these are users who only "left" for a few days or weeks. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed that. Archive after reanimated for how long, do you think? ħuman 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

About as long as they were gone for? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. ħuman 01:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No longer with us

Would it be appropriate to have a section of the shrine for tributes to RW editors who have genuinely IRL died? I'm thinking particularly of SusanG here, but I think there've been one or two others, & it's bound to come up occasionally. Anyone think of a good section title in keeping with the shrine/cryonics theme but not too tasteless? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Susan died? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Where have you been?!? Тy^Talk. 15:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Travelling on business. Fuck! I'd say add deceased to the shrine. I like to think that a sense of humor survives the grave. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 15:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I added Jtl. Long overdue, he was so awesome. Couldn't we have a different title than "Pining for the Fjords"? It just doesn't quite seem right. How about the aforementioned "No longer with us" or "Gone but not forgotten"? What say you all? Refugee^{talk page} 07:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right. "Pining for the fjords" is a touch tacky when talking about real people's deaths. I'm for "No longer with us." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All the users on this page are "no longer with us"; that's the whole point. The section title should be something a bit more specific. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Psy, I think "Gone, but never forgotten" is a good choice. :-) PS, I miss Tokyo Rose! Refugee^{talk page} 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that Snuff Box would be totally tasteless? However, given that a lot of people manage to avoid the maudlin at their own funerals by having Always look on the bright side of life played, then I would expect any RationalWikian to be quite comfortable with "Pining for the fjords". When I stop editing in the (quite possibly) near future I give you full permission to stick me in Slartibartfast-land. Lighten up folks, although we're talking about real people, they edited at RW and had a certain sense of humour, but they weren't Princess Diana. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's inappropriate to use some humour here. I was thinking of SusanG when I called it "pining for the fjords", as she was a Python fan & would probably approve. But this section will get more diverse, what with mortality being a human constant & whatnot, so maybe we should avoid making it a cultural reference that might be irrelevant to a lot of people. It would be nice if we could use a RW specific meme instead, but without it being cringingly awful (i.e. not "LANCB for good" or "great Chicken Coop in the sky" etc.). Any ideas? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Me

You can remove me though I'm not going to be esp. active. Ty^JFBAA 12:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It is done. GØØBY PLS ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 12:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

slightly ironic

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that many of the people commenting on this page about the departure of once-important editors should themselves now be present on this page as departed members.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)