Talk:Main Page/Archive24

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

Main page

What the hell? Have I had a stroke or has the front page gone a bit weird? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Checketh the date. At least this one is fairly funny. DeviantART has insisted on changing everyone's profile pictures to something incredibly, incredibly lame that I imagine is something to do with Twilight. ^gnostic 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In the bottom right, clicking on essays goes to debates and clicking on debates goes to essays. Is this an first of April thing or is a mistake?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, yes it is. ^gnostic 18:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see. How remarkably humorous in that case.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone remembers to clean this up, since now it looks a lot like RW1 did near the end. Or just leave it yeah? ħuman 02:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Phelps' estranged son

Don't know which is the best place to post this. An interesting and revealing interview with Fred Phelps' (WBC) estranged son. --Buscombe (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WIGO world might be a good place. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sophia and Bracket Brain

Are annoyed that mention of them has been removed from this discussion page.

They suggest creation of a Funpage where all 'Wiki symbols' can congregate and be discussed or admired (Con-serveapedia has 13 stars on it).

82.44.143.26 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

They were archived, not removed, because noone cares about your nonsense. -- Nx / talk 13:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Harmless nonsense (and no worse than some of the other things on RW).

82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sophia wishes to inform you that purple, white and green (as the Bracket Brain logo and area sometimes turns) were the colours of the Suffragettes. Is this part of an equal rights agenda? 82.198.250.69 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page layout

What do you think about this? ---> http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Sen/Gravelbox Sen (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If it needs changed, it needs a larger overhaul. Like, started from scratch so we can concentrate on what is useful. ^gnostic 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• The borders are important, otherwise it becomes a huge wall of text.
• The right column is too small IMHO. -- Nx / talk 18:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As Andy Pipkin would say, "I don't like it". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How about now? Sen (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it better with borders. The current borders feel heavy. -- Nx / talk 20:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The rounded corners currently on the mainpage suck. It looks more like an experiment in css than a proper page. Not having them, as on your proposed layout, is good. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The borders are only rounded in certain browsers. I know they are in Chrome and FF, but not in IE. It's probably an IE thing. Šţěŗĭļė Playstation 20:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everything but IE. But it's the rounding that looks cheesy. On IE I'm sure it looks, well... never mind. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

[X] I like new layout - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We should keep the top box though. -- Nx / talk 20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I like the thinner coloured bordered rather than the light grey ones. I've sort of become attached to the rounded corners now that Opera has given full support to the less standardised CSS3 features, but yeah, it is a little cheesy. However, I still think we need to actually look at the content of those boxes. The AOTW-free WIGO box is fine, the About box is fine, the Featured Article we're working on with the new supage/abstract idea (that's just some leg work to finish it before full implementation) but the rest need a look at to make them less muddled - it's a lot of stuff that I don't think are used much at all. ^gnostic 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

With rounding, it's either all or naught. If every little fucking box was rounded, it might not look bad. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver might be too dark, but #f5f5f5 is definitely too light. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am getting a bit confused. I created two graveboxes Neveruse. Sen (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

One is this one, where I want to keep poking around: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Sen/Gravelbox , One is this one, with your modifications: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Sen/Gravelbox%2BNeveruse ^{— Unsigned, by: Sen / talk / contribs}

And here's one with the vector skin. I also like the colored boxes better. Excuse the broken dpl -- Nx / talk 21:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I like the Vector skin. And the bloody huge red "DONATE" button - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Less is more ^{(I am a person not a template)} 21:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I like my layout (shock,surprise), but if not that, then I would like Neveruse's, only without the top box. I think that the top box is unnecessary. People already know they are in rational wiki (it says so on the logo on the left) and it just has three links in it that could be in the about or participate section. Sen (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well I'm going to stick my oar in and say that I very much like the current layout. I don't find the rounded boxes cheesey, but rather easy on the eye; in my opinion the proposed new layouts are much too abrupt and 'wall-of-texty'. If seems that just like the latest car designs, people want everything to be as sharp and angular as possible, well, not me guys! (Maybe that's why I've always driven old cars; my stylistic tastes are constantly behind the times). I use FF on Ubuntu if that makes any odds.... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing I don't like is that often one side is much longer than the other, leaving lots of white space. To fix this, I did two things: removed the about box (it's in the article you get when you click on "RationalWiki" in "Welcome to RationalWiki", and I don't think it's terribly important to have it on the main page ), and made the boxes fade out, so the white space is not so apparent. You'll need Safari, Chrome or Firefox 3.6+ to see that (for other browsers, I'll have to make an image-based fallback, for now it's just simple borders and no background): User:Nx/mainpagerevamp. -- Nx / talk 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, ugh. I like the nested, rounded corners. And it was getting rid of the aotw that mucked up the lengths, wasn't it? Maybe we can balance it better as part of the cover story revamp project? ħuman 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it was always a problem, and it will remain a problem, even though the new system gives us finer control. And you can resize your window, so we can't make a pixel-perfect version. -- Nx / talk 01:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The borders keep everything together. I don't like the new WP because it looks too wishy-washy. If we don't have borders then the different areas should be coloured to separate them from each other. As for the portals perhaps we could have a suitable graphic which then leads to a portal page that can explain in more detail what it covers and lead to more featured content. I'm sure we have some capable artists on RW (names escape me at the moment; K?).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it needs borders, but the current ones are too heavy IMHO. -- Nx / talk 01:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it, how does it appear on beta? - π 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken, because there's no dpl, and full of redlinks. -- Nx / talk 01:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DeltaStar that the current layout is just fine. It's not cluttered, most of it fits on one screen (no need to scroll down a lot to see everything, a la Conservapedia), the borders emphasize things in all the right ways, and everything that needs to be on it is on it. I've yet to see anything that's better. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion is that it is not going to look so great with the new skin, especially the thicker borders. - π 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to sound silly for asking this, but what new skin? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector. -- Nx / talk 01:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the header section being without a bounding box. On the one hand, I think it looks quite good with Vector. On the other hand, it looks out of place with the other sections in boxes. ^gnostic 08:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Article of the Weak removed

After seeing that same fucking article listed there for months with no change, my head exploded and I removed it. If anyone really wants to put it back, could they please commit to regularly updating the AotW? - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You win some....you lose some...tmtoulouse 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I noticed... ^gnostic 00:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be rebuilt in a way that puts comments made on it on RC... ħuman 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was always intimidated by the interface. I was generally confused about the interactive stuff, so I avoided the page. But that's probably more my deficiency than the page's. --Kels (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't you. I was Trent and I's worst work ever. Sad to say. Funny thing is a secret: who paid for it. ħuman 02:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some ideas for improving it after the upgrade. - π 02:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Nx "knew how" to do it but didn't care enough to implement. Not that he was obligated, of course. ħuman 02:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nx is our Savior. --Kels (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't just making them show up on recent changes. For example, the last few aotws were spammed because the normal edit filter and captcha isn't integrated. The comments you leave don't show up on your contributions, they can't be edited, etc. Implementing editing and history to comments would be a lot of work - fortunately most of that has already been done in the form of liquidthreads. The intercom certainly has the same flaws, but in that case it's not that big of a problem. -- Nx / talk 09:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The other problem is that it wasn't updated enough. There was a very slow rate of new nominations, and setting up a new AOTW entry was fiddly to do. i haven't been to that part of RW for ages but when it started it was awkward to navigate and find the page you wanted. Really we should only mainpage it again if it's regularly updated. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, obviously. I have an idea to make the setup process a bit more user-friendly... -- Nx / talk 09:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, martin, updating it was/is very clunky. Also, with it not appearing on RC, it's just under everyone's radar I think. ħuman 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that once you've read it and voted that's it. There's no rolling involvement with the idea like there is with the WIGOs and no incentive just to keep checking back to see if there's something new. If it did really update every week without fail, there'd be less of a problem as we could even structure a little event out of it but I don't think we have the userbase to keep that up. ^gnostic 21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that RC is an important attention grabber, if you see a lot of edits by different people to the same topic you are more likely to join in yourself.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of RW

With #any# topic - Wikipedia article often on first page, 'scattering of other wikis as relevant' (Ganfyd, Wookiewiki etc) and RW... once.

Many pages irrelevant to mission statement, unfunny or otherwise irrelevant.

The main page talk page boasts of the vandalism to it.

Keep on taking the tablets [1].

212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say...tmtoulouse 18:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you're leaving BON? Oh well, too bad. We'll miss you. -- Nx / talk 18:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A list of topics to discuss without being numbered, suggesting radical revision.

Tablet (in this context) - a Scottish fudge-like sweet (with a link to recipes).

212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wibble wibble busstop frankenfurter eggwhite. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sampling spammail headers again? Try lorem ipsum, Greeking or Finnegans Wake instead. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wacky Wikipedia layout change

Sophia wants to know will the RW search space be moved to join them? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection redux

It is protected again, why? - π 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Trent fixed it. I'm too lazy to chase the logs on this, but perhaps an overzealous new sysop? ħuman 02:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is strange how the first thing a lot of new sysops do is protect the main page and other things in the RationalWiki name space. It must be because they are protected at Wikipedia they feel it is a widely applicable rule or maybe they just like the power. - π 02:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They "we don't protect anything" clause has died down a bit as of late, and I dont really care other than the main page, it is symbolic. And I still remember an argument about whether or not to include RW as an interwiki link in Mediawiki when the retort was "they don't even protect their main page!" For that I shall always argue to leave it unprotected. tmtoulouse 02:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Red herrings are red. - π 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't like red round these parts. tmtoulouse 03:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected articles

What of these are necessary? - π 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Main (all redirects)
• Users (why?)
• User talk (why still?)
• RationalWiki
• Files (only one actually make some sense)
• Templates (high use seems to be the reason de ju)
• CP seems to be archives (should they all be protected then]

To address almost none of your question, many people have protected their sigs, I think. The high use templates are protected because altering them, supposedly, would overheat Trent's garret as the CPU caught up. As far as the three redirects, they were probably wandalism targets? There's no need to protect much for long, really. Private pages like sigs are no big deal IMHO. ħuman 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

If you are going to protect it Goonie could you set it to autoconfirmed so that established vandals can blank it? - π 05:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You being serious, or......? The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 05:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to be around a while to be autoconfirmed, so a newly signed up vandal can not edit the main page or someone in the vandal bin. So by autoconfirm protecting it, you are protecting it without it being a huge impediment to our open editing policy. - π 06:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I thought that "autoconfirmed" just meant that you had an account. It looks like, for example, that one of a certain person's accounts was able to blank it as their second edit ever, for example. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 06:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't protected at the time, a BoN could edit it. - π 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I had misread it (as I'm a little non-sober) to say July, not June. Autoconfirmed for a week it is, then. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 06:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

what is going on?

I log on and everybody's vandal binning each other and there's a dozen block? WTF? 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some trolls and Neveruse being a prick. Nothing to see here - move along... Aceⁱ⁹ 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same a few moments ago, but it's just the usual HCM. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HCM? What HCM? -- Nx / talk 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd call it simulated, rather than real, HCM, in that it was only one user and a troll or two (I don't think the cheerleader is to be blamed, however) causing trouble for everyone. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we don't really have a good metric for determining what qualifies as an HCM; I simply assumed it was because Recent Changes was clogged with blocks and reversions and such. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the bin on 66.BON was necessary. -- Nx / talk 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was just going for some sanity. Anyways, I got work to do so I'll leave it in others capable hands. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Random design thoughts

So, how many of you actually use the main page?

As in. Not immediately click either the "Recent changes" link or the "Saloon bar" link? Which sure is what I do. (with some very rare cases of using it to find the essay etc portal) So I'd like to tell you what I really think about it, and see if it actually mirrors things you might think.

I think that a lot of modern websites (especially demi political) are basically just a continuous stream of new information. This is a case with the BBC and Reuters front pages, this is the case with blogs, etc. That's what makes them visit worthy.

In contrast, a main page that doesn't really update ends up becoming boring. You have seen it once, you have seen it twice, then you know what it has and don't care about it any more. This might make sense for a website that is someone's portfolio or something, or intended to be seen once, this isn't necessarily the way to go, if you want a place which wants to give the feeling of anti-rationalism gets debunked again, and again and again. (a process). This might be what is happening underneath, this is not the impression a static main page gives. To see it, you need to do additional actions and if it is not interesting to us (again, how many of you use it?) why would it be to anyone else?

So instead, this is what I propose. See those WIGOs? (which are actually the active parts). How about a main page which is nothing more than 4 WIGO columns (all except the bar) and nothing else?

ZOMG, TERROR, HERESY, WTF, yes ok, but hold on a minute to explain why and my analysis of the main page elements.

The reason the WIGOs are interesting, is because the WIGOs are essentially the active part of the main page. The problem is that the WIGOs are also hidden. You just see a couple of titles in the main page which of course have meaning only to us until someone bothers to research what a "WIGO" is. They are active, underneath their links, but they don't appear active until someone does extra actions again (click them). And similarly, the reason the "saloon bar" is (for me) the most interesting part of the main page, is because it has become the equivalent of the "RW commentary on current events" button. Because it is the one bit that is constantly active and updating, thus worth subsequent visits.

In contrast, here's what I think of the current main page elements:

• "Welcome to RationalWiki!" Header. I always found that a bit silly because it basically tells you that you are in Rational Wiki. But you know that! You have a big brain symbol on the top left telling you that in every-single-page. Why do we waste space telling people that twice? The only useful information is the "community standards" etc links, that should be part of a general writing guide section. Notably, this is information only an editor would care anyway, rather than a visitor. It's the equivalent of Epson, putting a link to their printer manuals on their main page. Why? Let someone start editing first and then worry about that.

• "About RationalWiki". That's kinda useful. That's also a thing you would ever glance once, while taking 1/4th or so of the main page. How about people figuring it out by themselves by, oh, say, the 35250illion articles saying "creationists suck" or something? How did they find that site in the first place? Someone shouldn't need help in figuring out that rational wiki is a rational wiki the same way, say, Reuters doesn't say under it "we write news articles". I'd say the entire about section could become a link on the navigation menu on the left (call about) and if that isn't possible then I wouldn't worry about it.

• "Random Featured Article". Random feature article is kinda cute. Every "-pedia" seems to have it. At the same time I don't know about others, but it is also an enclyclopedia part I never look at. That's because when I go to one, I usually go for something specific and thus go straight for the search button. I know that the idea is for people to get "interested" in something in the hope that they might also check other things through it, but I question wither it really works. I also do note that there is a "random page" button in the left navigation button.

• "WIGO". As you probably have figured out, I like that, but for some reason it always felt awkward to use. Probably because it required me to first go in the main page, and then click in one of those links, in order to finally go to an actual WIGO. The idea of the proposed modification is to bring those forward, but not as static links, rather as active news columns containing part of the corresponding WIGO information. So basically you would see something like 4 mini blogs containing (part of) what the dedicated WIGO pages have, complete with little up and down voting arrows. The way I imagine it, the whole thing would kind of remind of a stock market a bit and since the whole arrow mechanism would no longer be hidden, I expect that more people would end up clicking them.

• "Participate in Rational Wiki". "How you found Rational Wiki?", "Join our Article-a-Week Club"? am I the only one who things that this type of "community building" attempts are a bit, well, cheesy? I don't know how much these things are worth, I do think however that all these things are not things you have any reason to be seeing every time you go in the main page, and could simply be included in what I called the "manual" page, which is something only a user that would care about editing would ever have to see. Possibly having a link in the navigation menu.

This section also includes the "Essay Portal" and the "Debate Portal" which is interesting because these are separate, yet technically part of, with what the section next to it (More featured Content) has, which contains all the rest of the Portals. (Pseudoscience Portal, Politics Portal etc).

To sum up then, I consider that section "More featured content" + the "Essay Portal" and "Debate Portal" links next to it, to be the single most useful thing in the main page. The final design I would propose then is this. (with a couple of tweaks in the navigation bar on the left as well):

4 colour coded WIGO columns. 1 "Index" section, that is essentially all the Portal link titles collected.

Now, I don't expect any of this to happen, or even liked. Instead what I want is to spark some debate regarding the main page content towards a future redesign of it. What is useful and what isn't.Sen (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The main page is more useful to new visitors than regulars.
2. I often find myself hunting for the "about" page of a website/wiki to find out what the hell it is about. It may be obvious to you what RationalWiki is, but it won't be to someone new.
3. Not everyone has a 30" monitor. 4 wigo columns would be a mess.
4. Aside from WIGO:CP, which RW should be moving away from, the other wigos are not updated very frequently.

+1 Why are you ruining my wiki? -- Nx / talk 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You can also transclude recent changes like so: {{Special:RecentChanges/50}} MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, splendid idea. Let's put MC's trolling on the main page. -- Nx / talk 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the points raised, but not really the solution - not least because I mostly still use 1020x780 monitors. It is probably useful to newer editors, but people visiting the site don't tend to come in via the mainpage. We do need something updating regularly to make it worthwhile, however. CP *shudder* has mainpageright with "news", similarly, we have WIGOs. However, figuring out what to update and how is a little more tricky. Transcluding all four is impractical, transcluding just one gives the wrong impression. The portals are nice, I sometimes use them (particularly the essay one) but I'm sure they're mostly glossed over by people and don't really add much, I think. The random article is also nice and I think that should be kept. However, a bit more balance could work. If we shunt all the "about" and "read this first" type links into the top bar (perhaps drop the "welcome to" but I'm not sure) then we can split the top half into two featuring the WIGOs and the random article; thus giving 50:50 prominence (kind of) to the two main parts of the site; the wiki and the interactive section. The remaining two sections of "more featured content" and "participate in" are probably easily cut without many tears being shed. ^gnostic 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re #4, "...because it required me to first go in the main page, and then click in one of those links...". Most modern browsers allow the user to save a "bookmark", that is, a direct link to any given web page. I bet many people here have RC bookmarked. I use my watchlist as my "active portal" to the site. Others might just bookmark the SB or... well, you get it. ħuman 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just have the main page on speed-dial, actually. However, surely that means we either need to look at making the mainpage better for non-regular visitors or enhancing its ability to act as a portal for the regular users. ^gnostic 19:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't see why it isn't "useful". The left side acts as a front door for strangers; the right side has the "busy places" all linked. I use it to get to the book of the month club, since I haven't bookmarked it. ħuman 23:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"thus giving 50:50 prominence (kind of) to the two main parts of the site; the wiki and the interactive section"

So how about this? (assuming that it is possible for a bit of the main page, to reload another bit of the main page) Sen (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but the other three wigos are updated very sporadically. I don't really see the point of trying to make the main page "lively" anyway. Also, you kept comparing us to "pedias", which we most assuredly are not. While the wigos/SB may be high-action pages, they aren't the point of the site. The point is the snarticles. IMHO, anyway. ħuman 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "sporadic", the Blog and World WIGOs are updated fairly frequently. Clog is quite infrequent and CP is slowly dying, but on average we get a few each day. If that rate increases, then it would be worth seriously considering. But trying to figure out how to make a consistent and automated "News Feed" type thing will be difficult. ^gnostic 11:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I shoved something into my gravelbox to see what it could look like. It's certainly painfully ugly and I have no idea how we'd actually make a "news feed" type thing (my guess would be a bot that monitored the WIGOs and copied them to that place, similar to how the Best Of Bots work) but this is generally how it would end up panning out if we decided to go that route. ^gnostic 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's far from as hideous as I expected. Is the VH front page chunk really that big? It's a good use of the buttons, too. The only thing that really struck me as clunky was a really long World post. If we do this we're going to have to discuss a "no swearing in wigos" guideline? Also, no wigos that say "facepalm!" and nothing else. But anyway... ħuman 01:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing, such an idea would be limited by the quality of the WIGO writing - length, style etc. - and any WIGOs that go oversize may have a problem. I briefly toyed with putting a coloured border around or to the side the WIGO entries but that didn't quite work in melding the oversized entries (I'm glad I added an oversized one to look at, as many of the highly rated CP ones are constantly updated and grow to be huge!). There's also a problem with how to automate such a system. The idea could be solved by putting WIGO entries on subpages and transcluding with DPL but I imagine that would be a nightmare to manage and would need a serious re-work of the system from the ground up; we're talking proper RW 3.0 here. Anyway, consider that version a more "proof of concept" than anything workable. ^gnostic 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How did miss this? I can think of a way of having that clicking thing, although what it would consist of is having four mainpages, the default and three that look like it, but with WIGO CP, WIGO Clogo, and WIGO Blog transcluded instead of world. A while back I asked Nx about having a display like best of but instead of having the highest voted being displayed it would have the 5 highest numbers, he says that that would be doable. All we need to do is convince him to come back. - π 13:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We could get Trent to write in in trent-hackeze, that might bring Nx back. ħuman 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't having them as four separate pages defy the point of having them transcluded directly to the main page? ^gnostic 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Most wikis

Are in severe need of websearch visibility.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good thing most of our good articles rank pretty high in search terms then. tmtoulouse 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not on the things most people look for. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've been thinking that we really ought to broaden our range of articles to incorporate celebrity gossip and pornography. SJ ^Debaser 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as there is a strong anti-woo theme, I see nothing wrong with expanding into hardcore pornography. tmtoulouse 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And all of that content would get stored.... on that server in the corner of your room...? Just for anti-woo purposes, of course... Bondurant (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I did see a porno where the young lady involved was advocating the benefits of Kinoki Foot Pads between moans. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, RationalPorn is so the fucking way to go. ^gnostic 06:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Going down the plughole - or attempting to come up it - and making forays into the oldest profession using Mary Sue plot-insertions (slashwise or other 'not elsewhere specified') will give you the wrong sort of webvisibility.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what are you selling? - π 12:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sue - author self-insertion/wish fulfilment in fiction. The male version has several names.

Slash - a particular type of fanfic relevant to the discussion (involving MS not being able to decide which, usually male, character she 'likes' most). 82.198.250.67 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we'll be using that. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, RW slash fiction... "Weasloid gently massaged Pi's shoulders, it'd been a tough day editing the wiki. Pi looked up and stared gracefully into Weasloid's big, sparkling eyes, noticing that for the first time they were truly beautiful..." Let me know if you need more brain bleach. ^gnostic 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

- π 12:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ho yay. ^gnostic 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Beware what is coming up the plughole!

What Conservapedia needs is a healthy dose of fanfic 'of the more exotic kinds' (Any two sentients, regardless of species, gender or other distinguishing factor' pair up in any flavour of relationship desired), BibleCelebrityGossip (tm) - all that begating and lusting, and 'things that should not be done' ('Thou shalt not kill' trumps 'the right to bear arms').

82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This page sucks

There's nothing funny on it. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As Charlie Marx said of Firebrush - don't just 'describe the problem' - do something about it. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit

Why do we have an "edit" link to the mission statement on the front page? Or any of those other sections for that matter? It just looks like an open invite for anybody wandering by to make changes to the missions without discussing first. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we shouls implement night mode. Or, more seriously, lock those templates; except that would have done nothing against the sysop who made the edit you're bitching about. P-Foster (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The more salient question is why both the mission statement and the community standards are allowed to remain the same way they are, considering their obvious deceitfullness. To be perfectly frank, you allow scummers like Gerard to come along out of the wilderness and completely ruin everything this site stands for. Chickens home to roost and all that.

I should also add that I'm not responsible for the vandalism. I prefer to convince by logical argument those who seek to destroy liberty. The fact that this comment will not be allowed to stand without a minor drama. Its a fucking disgrace what happened this site. A fucking disgrace. 86.40.197.81 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This should suffice. Tisane (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we're still linking to that editing screen from the main page, which kinda undermines the message about not editing it without prior discussion. Would anything really be lost by taking the "edit" link off this page? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for its presence - shift it. 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats your answer for everything. The only thing that seperates you and Stalin is scale. 86.40.197.81 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea that I was going to incorporate into the revamp when I was doing it in my gravelbox was two versions of the mainpage. One that was publicly facing and another that was a "maintenance" version that had edit links straight to the templates. This would either be held in a subpage or elsewhere, probably in the RW space. ^gnostic 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a holdover from the usefulness of templates having handy edit (and talk) buttons on them. Here it would make more sense to put links to each template on the main page at the top of this talk page or something. ħuman 21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Stalin would have purged the wikiverse as soon as he became aware of it (even though 'most wikis' follow 'from each according to his/her/other's ability). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WIGO restructure

An idea that came out of the exodus was to revive WIGO aSK with a WIGO Wikisphere, including any stupidity you see on a wiki that is not CP. So aSk, Metapedia, any of Proxima's, if it is stupid we point and laugh. Do we want to start afresh or move WIGO aSK? - π 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't rush, let's get settled in back home first. Move aSk → WikiWorld'd be my favourite. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not rushing, starting discussion. - π 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think moving WIGO AWK would be a good start (not yet though, of course). Shall we make a todo list here of what else has to be altered in this brave new world? ħuman 03:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. - π 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Only problem is I can't remember where anything on this wiki is anymore... But I know there's a template that ends up on the main page, and another one that is the header of the WIGO pages. So that's two. And there might be a link at our Whorehouse of Ignorance article. ħuman 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We can fix that after the move. Have we a) ideas for a name b) what is being moved where and why. Also remember the best of is going to need someone server side to fix it, so either Trent or Nx are going to have to be aware of what is happening. - π 03:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I know we can fix them after the move, but let's list everything we need to fix. I think RW:WIGO Wikisphere is running strongly as a favorite. Should it be in the RW namespace or main? Should "WIGO" be expanded? ħuman 03:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, the "best of", based on poll name, is an issue. That should probably be addressed first. ħuman 03:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You would need to change:

• AOTW Navigation
• Template:AOTW Main
• WIGO

I think that is it. I will have a look. - π 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why I suggested a new WIGO using the poll id poll=wiki### 03:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Keeping with the others I think: RationalWiki:What is going on in the wikisphere? would work best. - π 03:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A problem I've thought of is that how exactly do you tell the difference between the different wikis easily? We have our obvious targets which will crop up regularly. They don't generate enough to make a single WIGO, but combined, it could be confusing. Possibly make the poll ids automatically show an icon of the relevant wiki? Then what about the possibility of filtering them by wiki if you're just interested in ASK? (although this second one is way down the list of priorities) It's definitely a good idea to do WIGO:Wikisphere, but the problems of easily and immediately identifying which wiki each WIGO relates to is an issue (it doesn't really arise with blogs and clogs because they don't so much generate a continuing narrative). ^gnostic 12:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We could steal all of their favicons. - π 12:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

At Armand., those are both good ideas. I'm trying to get PJR to make a favicon... ħuman 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So what happens now with this? - π 12:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. There seems to be only the three of us who are up for the change. And you know we've been bollocked by the mob for unilateral action in the past. ^gnostic 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this to talk:WIGO aWK, where it will be noticed by the only people likely to care about or be affected by the change (if we do it)? ħuman 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang, didn't this go from WIGO ASK to here? - π 01:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it came straight here from the teflonbar or something. Either way, the AWK regulars don't seem to be chiming in up above at all. ħuman 03:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on WIGO aSk talk again. - π 03:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I hope people interpret "sticky" in a non-goat-centric way, though... ħuman 07:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sophia says

Too many articles on RW are off-message, and should be huffed.

Irony is a better woo-destroyer than sark and snark. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

We'd always prefer to improve existing articles to fit the purpose, rather than deleting without any effort towards reform. But I agree that there are a lot of off-message articles here that do need to be improved. Lyra § talk 04:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

I've been noticing how much hate there is on this site. It seems to be primarily a hate site towards religion and in particular Christianity. A particular focus seems to Conservapedia? I've had a look at this site. I have also read the page on this site covering it. Hmm. I'm afraid your page seemed a little...uninformational. Mostly hate and judgement of which I could find no evidence. Maybe there is some deep issue that only you have discovered, but, to be honest, Conservapedia seemed to have some interesting articles, whereas most of the articles on this site seem to be hate-based (with little or no direct justification or evidence supporting it). I am interested to see how long it takes for this post itself to be buried by hateful, accusing replies. Or be deleted even. Haha. That would really prove my point. So do what you will, but lets see if you guys are as "morally superior" as you would have us believe. Be nice, and let's have some intelligent replies to this shall we? 202.180.107.85 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to offer some specifics, what articles on CP do you find interesting, what articles on here do you find hate-filled, what points do we make with no supporting evidence? Can't really respond to something that is completely vague and devoid of content. tmtoulouse 05:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Put the same comment on the main page talk at CP and see how long you last. Here, you will not only last forever, but if you make a few edits, chances are Ace will sysop you. ħuman 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, Ace will only sysop you if you, um, create a user name. Guess what you can't do on CP? Edit as an anon IP! Also, you can;t edit in the middle of the night even if you are a registered user. Well, dang. You pwned us for sure. ħuman 05:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The "I bet this comment will just get deleted" things really do bemuse me... I mean, that's some proper hardcore paranoia. ^gnostic 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Most comments which have variants of 'bet this will be deleted' do not meet the minimum requirements for deletion (including the 'insufficiently interesting' one).

I would be surprised if there were any original articles on CP which could be described as interesting, other than in the "look how hilarious and stupid the fundies are" sort of way. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was making a general observation on the 'Will you delete this message Ya boo sucks!' category of comment which tend to flop listlessly around in the quagmire of 'Not even wrong.'

Some of the CP dicdefs "appear" to be valid - and how neutral are the Huey Long and pantomime articles? (Anyone wish to combine the two?)^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs}

Are you the same anonymous editor who asked the first question above? If so could you be more specific about the "hate-filled" articles on the site and tell us more about the "interesting articles" on CP--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Different number, different person.

Random featured article

Is the random featured article borked? It's the same one every time I come here. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're just lucky or have jammed cache. What happens if you reload the page? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It may be a caching issue. I'm getting different articles when I'm logged and un-logged, but they stay the same, even if I hit Ctrl+F5. To change the article, I need either to purge the page, or delete Firefox's cache/history/cookies.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Insert series of increasingly angry comments, " Works fine for me in X under Y - get a new browser/computer/job/life"). DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 11:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I purged the cache, and the article changed to Poe's law - i take this to mean that your advice is indistinguishable from parody. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's randomised with the newer parser function, which makes it easier on the server by changing it only every so many page-views rather than for every single time the page is refreshed. Edit the page and save it and it should select a new one. If RW is seeing a lull in the traffic, it might go a while without changing. ^gnostic 11:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So purging the cache had no effect on the consequent changing of the article? Yea, verily, correlation equalleth not causation! Totnesmartin (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got the purge button (clock thing) on my page & it changes every time, no matter how fast I click it. 12:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Firefox is much more anal retentive than IE, and I think Chrome is as well. The problem is that the mainpage has an old datestamp but uses templates which FF doesn't check on. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Me Chrome & Opera. 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

deadlinks and bad refs

I noticed that SuspectedReplicant removed a lot of references from the Andrew Moulden article, replaced them with {{fact}} tags and downgraded it from Bronze. This raises significant issues. Wikipedia has dead references (they usually give an access date) but I'm not aware that they then remove the refs if they stop working. Internet stuff can be deleted, moved or updated so how should we deal with this? Should we increase the range of Capturebot, require verified links or what? We can't go messing up longstanding articles if the refs somehow change.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I raised a similar issue on the talk page of Conservapedia. The ref links there make no sense. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Andrew Moulden, I removed them to highlight the point that there are several fairly serious statements being made about a living person and that finding sources should be a priority. I didn't "mess up" the article. If you think it's genuinely better with a load of links that don't work, please feel free to put them back. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accuse you of messing up any particular article, I was concerned about the wider issue. We must have dozens of articles which rely on external links especially concerning people or companies who might get litigious. It's important that we can back up our references with evidence.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP doesn't remove deadlinks - a bot flags them and it's up to people watching those pages to put things right. I've been doing that to WP:Charlotte Cooper (author) and WP:Hairy hands just now. Perhaps we could import that bot? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) This is a fair point but might be more properly discussed on Talk:Main_Page rather than the SB. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's nothing to do with the main page. As it says at the top of this talk page: "General question about the site? If it is technical, go here. If it is about the community, go here." If talking shop at the bar bothers you, put it in RationalWiki:Forum/Site-related_discussion instead. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Weaseloid is quite correct. ħuman 19:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Weeks later

Typical RW. Instead of discussing the subject, the whole thing gets sidetracked into "is the the correct page for discussing the subject." Totnesmartin (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It look more like the discussion stopped because it had been moved somewhere irrelevant where it would get no attention rather than because of discussion of where it was moved to. If it had stayed at the SB, maybe more people would have weighed in with opinions. Shrug. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that the consenus is "Meh, who gives a fuck?" Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Beware

... the Ides of October: there might be brain(worm)holes. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs} 18:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

. . . so were there? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Only if you spotted them: like cats they can be in more than one place at a time.

The Kalends of November have come.

But not yet gone.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So? Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What has Rational Wiki contributed to the world?

• Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create.

How many RW articles are in the top 10 at Google? Where are your world-class featured articles? What do you guys do, when you're not busy vandalizing CP? --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, who are you, again? ^gnostic 21:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We could never hope to compete with your accomplishments Ed. I mean you were one of the first editors to register at wikipedia, there is no topping that as a life achievement. tmtoulouse 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention Andy. I bet his former classmate is pretty jealous of his achievements right now. -- Nx / talk 21:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe RW has the no.1 spot for the search Andrew Schlafly whereas CP has the no. 1 spot for The transitional animal the flying kitty? Ace^X-102 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we have at least one [2] at number 1 and many others in the top ten. Admittedly CP has one or two: but they're all for the wrong reasons: mockery! 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are actually interested in a response see: user:tmtoulouse/niche. Also, we have a lot of articles that rank high on google and other search engines. The data is really only available from server logs but there are several dozen medium search terms that we rank in the top 5 for. Our traffic level perfectly fine for our current stage of development and increasing steadily. Also our active users, and article count, and edits are increasing as well. How is CP doing? tmtoulouse 21:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it I'd be very interested to see the evidence that RW actively endorses and organizes vandalism of Conservapedia. The majority of the top contributers couldn't give a crap any more about Schlafly's blog, yet alone find the time to "vandalise" it. I'd be most interested to see it because I know for a fact that whatever loop this organised vandalism occurs on, I'm not part of it, not that I could join in even if I wanted to; I checked a few months ago to see that by University IPs have been rangeblocked and as I recall, I never logged into CP (even in 2007/8) from a university computer and I'm pretty sure I'm the only RW editor from here (well, I have suspicions about one registered but not extremely active user). On the other hand, we can cite plenty of evidence that these accusations, which I think are borderline libelous in their tone, are entirely due to well known Right-Wing paranoia. FFS, the persecution complex is completely uncalled for. ^gnostic 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that Ed's fallen for Ken's crazy SEO tricks, so here's just a few of our Google rankings:

Quantum Woo #1

Poes' Law #1

Pascal's Wager #10

Behe:The Edge of Evolution, Interview #1

Expelled:Leader's Guide #1

Engineers and woo #1

Quote mining #2

Evidence against a recent creation #1

Autism omnibus trial #1

Intelligent design and academic freedom #6

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection #1

Vaccine hysteria #1

Andy Schlafly #4

Shootag #5

Lenski affair #1

Nils Heribert Nilsson#2 (WP is #1, CP is #3)

Andy Schlafly #4

Ed Poor #3 :)

Of course that is my Google, your mileage (or Ken's) may vary. Note than none of these use a quoted string which would actually give higher rankings for some articles, the Intelligent design and academic freedom would otherwise be #3. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hee! Conservapedia: #3! after CP & WP. 13:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Uncle Ed has been swallowing enough of Ken's jizz that he's starting to regurgitate it. "How many RW articles are in the top 10 at Google?" "Where are your world-class featured articles?" Why not ask "How many people with PhD's link to your site?" or "Where are all the great creationists debaters seeking to debate you?" Does it occur to you that we are not Ken Dymer and google rankings are indicative of our dick size? I can't speak for anyone else here, but I contribute here because it's fun, educational, and interesting. And somehow, laughing at idiots like you never gets old (I don't know how that is). How's this for a question: "where are your actual productive edits to Wikipedia, Eddie?" We all know you were a very early editor, but getting your foot in the door early doesn't mean you've done anything worthwhile. I looked at a lot of your early edits and they were shit, just like the contextless quotes you try to pass off as articles at CP. Unlike CP, we have no desire to replace Wikipedia (you realize this will never happen, right Ed?) so the fact that, like CP, we are nowhere near doing that is not a detriment to us, unlike you guys. What has Conservapedia accomplished, other than provide laughs for the sane people of the world. And don't point to google rankings as some sort of accomplishment. They aren't. DickTurpis (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, once I saw the awesomeness of "Two meters" I just gave up writing. I mean, how could I compete? Then again, maybe Ed's wondering how we manage to keep going, seeing as the seminal conservative encyclopaedia is dead in the water. Oh yes, and most of us like each other, which makes for a nice community spirit. CP should try it one day.--PsyGremlinPraat! 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

<aside> I notice that uncle Ed hasn't been back to defend his ?point? 13:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you expect him to? I also notice he's channelling TK again "what do we do when we're not vandalising CP?" Ed, sweetheart, Andy and TK are doing a pretty good job of ruining CP on their own. If I was you and I wanted to find the true vandals, I'd have a look at ED. In fact, they have a very interesting pic of you there. One I'm sure Terry is very fond of too. Run along now. I'm sure you have a stub about young girls you want to show Andy. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I kind of want a Facebook style "like" button for DickTurpis' comment above. ^gnostic 15:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Going with the CP RW comparisons, it's interesting to consider the substantial quantity of free publicity they've had following such disasters as Lenski and the Conservative bible project and then consider how little of what you would consider to be their natural base has joined them following this publicity. On the other hand RW gets a constant stream of new editors who fly in from various corners of the net. Of course CP is not important in any real sense but it still makes an interesting comparison.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it has to do with the reasons for CP's popularity compared to RW's. CP's popularity is mostly driven by Andy's ill-fated ventures; while RW often rides CP's wave, it also offers informative and entertaining content in between Andy-fiascoes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair or constructive to compare the two. A quick look through the graphs at Alexa show some quite different styles of visits. On everything bar "reach" and "rank" CP and RW more-or-less are level pegging (and reach and rank are easily manipulated by people linking to just laugh at CP rather than contribute, or you'd expect the other stats to fall in line). ^gnostic 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So list out some of the things RW #has# contributed to the sum of human knowledge (or the Wikiverse if preferre) rather than commenting on each other and/or the vagaries of Conservapedia. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs} 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to the sum of human knowledge is not our goal. And please sign your comments. -- Nx / talk 16:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This line of criticism is very strange, take a look at our mission statement. Our site is defined around being a commentary based site. We stake things that are out there in the world, that fall into certain categories, and we comment on them. Sometimes we comment positively, sometimes we comment negatively. Sometimes we have to produce original work through synthesis and extrapolation cause no one else has commented, sometimes we can just recycle and link comments by others.

I have talked a lot off and on about ways to measure "success" of this project and why I think we are successful. I look at things like, are we getting passive links? Are the number of those links increasing both in number and variety of articles linked to? How many lawsuit threats by cranks do I get a month? Are people or companies we comment on showing up here to discuss things? Is our active editor count increasing or decreasing? Is our edit count increasing or decreasing? Are there new ideas, directions, projects, etc. being created or do we appear stagnant? Is relative viewership increasing or decreasing? All of these are variables that can be used to try and get hints at this poorly defined concept of "success." No one wants to put work towards a project that they think has no effect and no one reads, so it is important to show people sometimes how their work is being read, is having an effect, is shaping the dialog sometimes in big ways, sometimes in small ways. But in the end, its about enjoying RW, and the community. For a lot of us, we just like the people, and have its fun to write about crazy people, ideas and products. tmtoulouse 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot one "metric" - that we were able to raise 2010 Q4's budget requirements in what, two weeks? Although Tmt still subsidizes the site a bit, we are almost self-reliant, which is pretty cool. ħuman 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks? Wow. ^gnostic 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's quick! --Onion <talk> 23:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't even that long. 8/28 (two weeks ago today) was the Trustee meeting where we "approved" the budget and decided to do quarterly fundraising (and budgets). Then Trent set up the magic payment tracker thing. He took it down a few days ago, with edit comments saying something like "goal reached". I was very impressed. ħuman 23:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Who gives a shit?--MasterOfYourDomain (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As Charlie Marx might have said - is the intent of RW to get notability for the site, describe the world or to change it (or create general annoyance like 'Wikipedia when scrambled' or Wikileaks? If it is just 'laughing at the loonies in the asylum' that is #so# 18th century Bedlam. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs}

How often does RW appear with searching "the usual topics" - sex, sport, weather and 'what rubbish is on TV tonight?'? ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs} 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? -- Nx / talk 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics totally contribute

Deniers don't contribute, but real critical thinking is the basis of progress. By examining claims and withdrawing those that fall flat you highlight areas where real progress can be made, where new theories need to be generated (or old theories tweaked) and those new theories allow you to make new predictions and those new predictions are the basis for new technologies and new strategies. Doubt is the roadmap for innovation. --Opcn (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Simplified - thesis, antithesis, synthesis. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs} 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

special page needs talk page for deeper business consultation

hello there i thought maybe I should offer some hints and tips regarding the business efficiency of your firm. This page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges requires a talk page for deeper business efficiency, unfortunately present projections project growth of 0.9% while we need to see growth in the region of 50%. I believe such an innovation may help lead more capital into the arms of your venture and help you achieve exponential growth. Now do you see why I am such a wealthy man. Thisisyourchance (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you offering to finance the Wikiverse? Or finance the Wiki takeover of the global government?

212.85.6.26 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

our purpose

Are those purposes really prioritized? Should the list be numbered or unordered? Occasionaluse (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My purpose is to destroy all humans. Should I itemize it first? --Kels (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Occasionaluse. The list should be numbered or unordered. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

coverstory abstracts

I'd like all of the coverstory abstracts to have their titles left justified. It looks like crap centered. The center tag is deprecated anyway. I'm going to start changing them. If anyone has a problem, block me. If any crat wants to bot me, please do so. thanks. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We might as well remove the titles, since the title is usually the first word of the article and the abstract, and it's bolded. We can instead put a read more... link at the bottom. -- Nx / talk 13:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Or simply link the bolded title... ħuman 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And wouldn't this have made more sense at talk:main? ħuman 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The read more at the bottom makes more sense because when you read the abstract and decide that you want to read the rest, it'll be right there were you are looking at. And yes. -- Nx / talk 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The day before the server move and the change to Vector as default. I don't think it's an improvement at all and am of a mind to change them back. How's anyone else feel? - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See above. I think just linking the bold title in the text should work, as Human suggested. -- Nx / talk 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of linking the bold title and the read more link. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I like that too - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the move to the left (all other headers on main are left-justified, btw). I think having the linked title is useful, since at least one precis does not contain the title explicitly (CP math or something), and it could happen again. ħuman 23:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or is the wiki being increasingly plagued by spambots who don't do anything except create accounts?

And does anyone else have a bad feeling about this? that they're somehow coordinating, steadily growing their numbers one by one, until... Blue (is useful) 05:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that they register, but are unable to post their spam. See RationalWiki:Technical support#Spam blacklist?. *sadistic laughter* :D --ZooGuard (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Anyway, soon we'll have the abuse filter to combat spam. -- Nx / talk 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's remarkably obvious, but we also need to implement this. ^gnostic 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Will somebody create spambotwiki on Wikia to which such nuisances can be redirected (and be squashed by the Monty Python foot). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To remove some of them, try maintenance/RemoveUnusedAccounts.php --76.21.116.27 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Rationalwiki conspiracies

'Run on Mediawiki by poorly paid aliens' - are the Little Green Men/Greys/David Icke's reptiles taking over?

82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

NASA press conference...wow.

Anyone else going to be watching this with more than casual interest? Apparently, they've found a life form which can utilize arsenic in place of phosphorous. If that's the case, it's AMAZINGLY huge news--the biological equivalent of "Oh, yeah, turns out tabletop cold fusion IS possible, we just had to use a styrofoam cup."

The sad thing is, it's easy to predict what the Creationist response will be. "They were wrong about the essential building blocks of life! That means evolution is a LIE!" --Phentari (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we are talking about it over at RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrational ikiw—a wiki that you cannot edit!

Irrational wiki—a wiki that you cannot edit! Rationalize the main paage, please. And thank you. And then a kitten may capitalize the Internet for you all. But i'm not a kitten. So I'll just go see if i can do It, anyway. Love the kitten. --76.21.116.27 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted comment in error - sorry.. Ace^{word up} 21:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The main page is protected because of its visibility and because it is a vandalism magnet. It's not like there aren't enough autoconfirmed users around to fix something if someone points it out on the talk page. Provided they can understand what you're saying. -- Nx / talk 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We're probably missing out on some primo vandalism. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. -- Nx / talk 22:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is one good one to make it all worthwhile. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RationalwikiSandboxMainpage would be a solution to the above.

Will mention 'cat typing' and the kittenwars website. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Beware

... the twelfth day of Christmas.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

... the Ides of March. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Red hat

I think this release has been superseded. Cell Ladablar (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We use Ubuntu. - π 07:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So why does the logo not have an abundance of tu on it? 7even (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

“”A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.

—Desmond Tutu

We try to have an abundance of that. - π 08:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandal brake

One for those of us whose wiki fu is strong. When I click on 'block' then on 'vandal brake', instead of listing the lowlife scumbag's victim's nick, it shows '$1'. It seems as if something isn't being imported from somewhere. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Nx / talk 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenk yew.--Ψ GremlinTala! 14:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The first day of spring

...has come.

'Boing, boing,' said Zebedee, springing into action. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have enough to do. Тy^Talk. 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Date-wise appropriate harmless levity. (I prefer Mejool dates if appropriate.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Beware the Kalends of April (unless you are Greek(ing)). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

Only 11 months to go before the next one. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now "only" 9 more months before the next one :) Colbert|Fan^{Britons are people too!} 06:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We might as well get that annual fight about the Santa Hat underway. Somebody go get Human. DogP (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't we do something Chanukah-related? Yarmulka on the brain, perhaps? Blue (is useful) 04:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember to buy early for Christmas (3011) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So when are we going to put up the Santa Hat this year? Can we do it on Nov. 1st? Or should we bring it forward a little? --DogP (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, it is march. Тy^Talk. 17:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should go up when we hear the first christmas songs in the shops. So, July? ^gnostic 17:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They start in September here, but people still haven't taken down their decorations here either. Тy^Talk. 17:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We are presently missing a key player in the Santa Hat Production Department.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen him on Wp, RW, MW,or RWW in weeks/months. Тy^Talk. 17:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was making a post-modernist ironic comment on the tendency of 'the shops' to start marketing for the next festivity as soon as (or evenbefore) the previous one had wound up. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, see we have had much drama over this subject in the past. Тy^Talk. 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

9 months to go (unless you are Russian Orthodox). See Archangel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary

Yes, it was all palm, meet face, face, meet palm, you're going to get to know each other very well in the next few hours. ^gnostic 15:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is someone just really trying to piss Human off? Me? I love it, and would leave the red floppy hat there all year. DogP (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Santa Hat

I would think the reason for the santa hat is that Jesus was most liklye born in the spring. Therefore christmas should be in spring not winter.

I believe it's an April Fools joke.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Around October is the best guess considering descriptions in the Bible. Although considering that snow is consistent with winter (December in the Northern Hemisphere) and the santa's hat is nearly secular, it's not likely that that "sort" of Christmas could be in the spring. AFJ indeed, and I'm upset that it didn't cause more of a row. ^gnostic 11:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've always understood that Spring was the most likely. Assuming that he was born at all. And, yes, the Santa hat has nothing to do with Christianity. Where is our Easter Bunny?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

He was delicious. Тy^Talk. 13:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I heard October because of the descriptions of shepherds, which wouldn't have been in the hills in December. Spring also makes sense in that respect but there was something else as well, I'd have to look up that source again. ^gnostic 13:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Christina Rosetti notwithstanding, how often does it snow in 'what was then Judea'? (Likewise are there any sweet little robins, reindeer and puddings of the sort associated with Christmas).

And 'The Sun has got his hat on.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking us or telling us? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A reference to the song (continuing on from the Father Christmas hat thread). Astronomically improbable. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Beware

... the Easter Bunny. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Capturebot

It seems as if capturebot has snuck off with Pibot again. can somebody with wikifu please give the tin can a good kicking? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Technical support Тy^Talk. 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This n00b moment was brought to you by SuperJosh productions. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that today has arrived

And oh look, no Rapture. That's a disappointment. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The "explanation" - Samoa crossed the dateline creating a logic-loop in the calculations/an error in the space-time continuum so everything has to be reset. (Other explanations involve interactions between the Earth and the star that purportedly orbits the sun and threatens desth whose name escapes me; or SF plot devices).

As I said on facebook, "They're a bunch of superstitious old women and it's got the best of them!" --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My remark re Samoa was tongue-in-cheek. Next possible "explanation" - using the Gregorian rather than the Julian calendar (or a completely different calendar entirely).

What is the PC version of 'superstitious old women'? And which is the doomsday star (not being the Star called wormwood - which prediction was at least partially accurate: Chernobyl apparently refers to a local species of the plant)?

I don't think there is a PC version of "superstitious old women". That's what makes it such an awesome insult. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrinklies/Crumblies - conveys the sense while being gender neutral. For reference to Chernobyl = wormwood check on the web. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And 'fivepence back on a fiver' next Halloween will be celebrated as well. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Bracket brian

If Bracket Brian gets switched off what combination of keystrokes gets him (and other logos) switched back on again 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Alt + f4. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All that seems to do is to close the page. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just being mildly humorous with the deleted remark on it being 5 months to Christmas (and 25 July probably is one of the more boring days in the year). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

London Borough of Ealing libraries

... are blocking quite a few RW pages - though probably on the grounds of taste with Conservapedia delusions. Can somebody do something about other areas? 82.198.250.5 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are the cover stories not random any more?

I get Atheism and Conservapedian mathematics exlusively. Nothing else. sterile^talk 04:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I used to get birth control a lot but I get a pretty decent variety. I have CP math at the moment but I'm not sure I've ever had atheism. Sam ²¹² 04:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

They're random for me, though though it is usually Andrew or Cyronics. Expelled shows up once in a blue moon. Ty^talk 11:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was just a fluke. I'm getting other things now. sterile^talk 20:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I find purging the page helps... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

⧼Capitalization⧽

Is there any reason why the WIGO titles are not ⧼capitalized⧽ but the portal titles are? I think it would look better if this were ⧼standardized⧽. I'm going to change it. Blue (is useful) 20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what's with the ints? -- Nx / talk 20:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Blue (is useful) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nooooooooooo.!!!!!! You are ruining my wiki. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because English isn't German and most nouns are not capitalized in a question. I hate unnecessary caps. Blech. sterile^talk 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Been reading this site for awhile

I like it so I joined. Slam (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it's good to have you! Sam ^Tally-ho! 07:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I was lurking just in time to catch your friendliness! Slam (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Anytime is a good time for lurking, Slam : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate text

"We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." This appears twice on the main page. I doubt that our readers have that short a memory, so perhaps one of these should be removed, or perhaps we could cut down the second instance to something snappier. Rennie McGreet (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak

A simple logo change for blackout day? Rationalwiki, I am exceptional dissapoint. [Wo]Man the fuck up everybody. I will be back in three hours, I expect a completely black wiki on my return. Icewedge (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, it's blackout day so you are patrolling sites to see if they are blacked out? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Is WP sending out flying pickets?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know we'd had a logo change. In Chrome, the regular logo is displaying. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Control-function 5 ArchieGoodwin (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have to clear your cache. Blue (is useful) 20:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

main page templates

whatever happened to the main page templates that you could edit? i really miss them.

03:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Truth about Politics

03:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FTL neutrinos

Im not a user, but I am a obsessive RationalWiki reader and have kept up with most of your articles, especially the theory of relativity and what you say on Conservapedia's moronic take on it. Can you take a look at this article and put it in context before CP gets it's hands on it.

Here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/?gt1=43001 ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.60.39.19 / talk / contribs}

03:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

<are you sure you want to do this?>

The first time I stumbled on consevapedia, I was kind of frightened by the sense of paranoia and the proud inability to contemplate intellectual diversity.

But people who should know better taking it one step further . . .

(Have fun, I guess.)

03:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Under the "More featured content" heading

I'm sure I'll get some flack for bringing this up, but should we really continue having a Conservapedia portal under this heading? Removing the portal from the front page seems like a small but constructive step in continuing a trend toward becoming more than just a Conservapedia watch dog. I understand that analyzing and criticizing everything CP is important to many people here as well as the common heritage, but I think a majority of editors would welcome continuing this gradual shift in focus. I think Conservapedia stuff should...well, remain in the Conservapedia name space. What say the mob?? Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That two columns are currently symmetrical - what would you replace the cp portal with? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Alt-med? Ufology? Creationism? Also, agree with Sam. Ty^Annoy 02:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The articles in them are not random, are they? Some of them could possibly be replaced by better examples, and if you made an alt-med portal you would have to move some of the stuff out of pseudoscience. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

They are random, using the old "best of" categroies. Ty^Annoy 03:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had to purge the page to get anything different. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But yeah, I'd support you changing it. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as I think we should be down playing CP crap in our main space, I do think we have to remember that people do come here for CP crap. The link is not big, it's not really drawing attention to itself, I say (and i hate to say this, but) keep it. GodotGrow a vagina 03:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not exactly prominent on the page. I think it's fine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Godot. sterile^talk 06:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we have a whole article namespace devoted to it, I think it should be on there. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Adminstratorship

What does it take to get admin powers on this site? Mr. Anon (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Try to keep the overt vandalism to a minimum, about it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's going to be pretty tough, but I think I can meet that. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You realize you've been an admin since December? ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, he's been autopatrolled since then. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

*smacks self* ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ides of March

... have come but not gone.

Shakespeare-the-novel-to-play-conversion-writer wrote Elizabeth I's speeches, Bacon's main texts and so on. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Che Guevara

In the video of Schlafly on The Hour(http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_tools), one the kids in the class is wearing a Che Guevara t'shirt. I'm going to assume that since they call him a Marxist and follow their general style of writing articles about people who don't have ultra-conservative views by completely bashing them that Conservapedians hate him. But they also say that: "He has become a cultural icon for liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, illegal aliens, and white "hipsters"". This seems suspiciously like a liberal tool to me... http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_tools I've never edited anything on a site like this before but I feel like this should be on here somewhere. Any suggestions? ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.139.98.237 / talk / contribs}

I haven't seen the video myself, but from what I've heard it's actually one of those ones with the no-smoking thing through them. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 07:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "no smoking", but yeah if you "look" at it while watching, Che's iconic image is circled in red with a violent stroke across his face in red. Young hater. ħuman 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)