Template talk:AOTW Main

From RationalWiki

Contents 1 Initial discussions 2 To do list 3 interlink playpen 4 Fourth Reich 4.1 Unfront paging WIGO4R

[edit] Initial discussions

Should we not put a direct link on the front page either to this or to all 4 WIGO's seperately?--Damo2353 17:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

That's coming next, we build things in pieces :). Once this page is up to our standards and the new article of the weak is up we will move this over to main page talk about how to integrate it there. tmtoulouse ^pester 17:35, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm beginning to think of pretty much replacing the "according to" section with these links - main header to this, plus the 4 WIGOs and CPAotW. But, as Trent said, we'll discuss that at talk:main when the backend is all polished. ħuman ^sub 17:47, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

But wouldn't these just cover blogs, nazis, CP, and us? Wouldn't we need actual NEWS somewhere. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Is this lulz inducing?} 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Nothing stopping us from adding a WIGO news as well. tmtoulouse ^oppress 17:56, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Good idea! That would cover the gaps left by killing off According to... so then we could keep the name "According to" for the box o'links... ħuman ^{be in} 17:58, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This portal page might not be needed, I think we might just replace according to with the contents of this thing... thoughts? ħuman ^{there is no cabal} 19:09, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, maybe we should mock it up in a sub page? tmtoulouse ^harass 19:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking it's been a while since I put a mockup front page in one of my sandboxes again ;) Since this isn't live yet, I'll just transclude it instead of Acc. to and start making it be teh pretty with that use in mind. Let me see, where will I put it... here. Hang on a bit so I can do the copying... ħuman ^sap 19:52, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Isn't "interactive articles" a bit bland? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 20:31, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Check here and feel free to come up with a better header. This one's title doesn't matter, it's being transcluded in the end, not visited. ħuman ^troll 20:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Yea, if anyone has any feed back on a better name I am all for that, so ideas people? Layout looks fine to me but that is not really my "specialty" anyway. tmtoulouse ^beset 20:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

(Eventually - soon - I'll be moving this to a template, since that's what it will be) ħuman ^random 20:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I kinda liked our count down till Bush goes away thing. tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:00, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh shoot, glad you caught that. I'll copy it over. ħuman^culous 21:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] To do list

1. improve intros at WIGO articles
2. make a nice little interlinking system between the WIGOs
3. copy or move according to archive to the WIGOnews article space
4. get permission from the mob at talk:main to do this; feedback on "header" on main page HAVE ASKED ħuman ^{be in} 20:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I will work on the according too stuff? How far below the line should be ported over here? tmtoulouse ^pester 20:59, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Everything you have the stomach to do the poll work on? And archive the rest... Hopefully the WIGO CP archive list dpl will work in all locations if we do it right. ħuman ^waste 21:00, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Moved it all over, now how to handle the archives? They are not divided into months or anything, do you want to just move them with the naming scheme ArchiveX? tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:18, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

No, just use simple numbers (001, 002, etc.), and make them subpages, then we can just copy the dpl from WIGOCP. Maybe one day we will then go to date based names, and it will all be good. ħuman ^{be in} 21:20, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Nice! I copied over and adapted the dpl ħuman^culous 21:23, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, so interlinking should be simple enough right? Do we want to link each on of these articles to each other? Or link each one back to this page? tmtoulouse ^pester 21:39, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

To each other. This "page" won't exist - it will be at the main page. Linking to each other makes for easier visitor browsing. Let's build the boiler plate right here on this talk page first. ħuman^culous 21:43, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] interlink playpen

Article of the Weak
What is going on at Conservapedia?
What is going on in the Blogosphere?
What is going on in the Clogosphere?
What is going on in the Fourth Reich?
What is going on in the "world"?

Article of the Weak - What is going on at CP? - What is going on at the Blogs? - What is going on at the Clogs? - What is going on at 4R? - What is going on in the "world"?

Article of the Weak - WIGO CP - WIGO Blogs - WIGO Clogs - WIGO 4R - WIGO "world"

Article of the Weak - What's going on at CP? - What's going on at the Blogs? - What's going on in the Clogs? - What's going on at 4R? - What's going on in the "world"?

Yeah, but the apostrophe kills the "I" in WIGO! ħuman^ities 18:43, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

And? That isn't important when we're going for links that are abbreviated anyway. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 18:50, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Huh? Apart from that not really making any sense, they've always been referred to by the full word, or of course the "full" abbreviation. ħuman^{itarian aid} 19:15, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

"The way it's always been" is not a real reason. WIGO is an abbreviation anyway, so I don't see why "what's going on" should be unacceptable. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 19:20, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not "unacceptable", it's just pointless, as far as I can see. It saves, what, 4 characters? By the way, so far we have already used the really short "WIGO" version. The main thing was to make it narrow enough that it never wraps for anyone. ħuman ^clues 19:34, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

"What's going on" sounds natural. "What is going on" sounds like a robot. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 19:43, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

"What Is Going On" sounds more professional in my humble opinion. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 19:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Fourth Reich

(human complained in an edit comment while removing "neo-Nazism" that he didn't really like it saying "fourth reich" on the main page, either) ħuman ^{be in} 21:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

• Far Right?
• Far Far Right?
• Far Far Far ... you get the idea.
  Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 21:48, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah... well, racism is really their thing, their uniting disgusting trait, isn't it? "extreme racists"? "racist wing"? oh, what about "fascism" in some form? ħuman ^{hilarious link to my talk page goes here} 21:55, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Heh: Far White Susan^{Talk(if you must)} 21:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I like it! ħuman ^{there is no cabal} 22:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Are you talking about renaming WIGO4R? Because Far White doesn't make sense for that, and wouldn't encompass the same concepts. Face it -- our subjects are Nazis and saying "Nazi" is the neatest way of describing them. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 22:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Not renaming the srticle, no, just getting those ugly words off our front page. And, really, white supremacism is what all these 4R types have in common, sometimes it's their only issue, sometimes they also are fascists, etc. I really don;t want our front page to say "Nazi", whatever the context. But maybe I am being hypersensitive. Question is, say I'm right about the "Nazi" part, is "Fourth Reich" a big deal or not really? ħuman ^{be in} 22:10, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Well... If I did say you were right about that part, I suppose it wouldn't be much of a further stretch to say "Fourth Reich" isn't important. But to be honest, I can't see much of an argument against the Nazi words apart from "I don't like them". Is there any real issue of classification here? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 22:13, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand your question... ħuman ^{eats glue} 22:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Silly Schuman. Do you actually disagree with classifying Stormfront and Metapedia as Nazis? If so, why? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 22:26, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe just WIGO Metapedia? At least until we get actual non-MP entries. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 22:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

1. yes, they are neo-Nazis. They are also white spuremacists and that is what is appalling about them in general. It tends to be the racial crap that draws them into these groups, certain economic policies, say. 2., Nah, let's try to broaden beyond MP asap. Anyway. Two questions - does anyone have a problem with my having changed "Fourth Reich" to "Far White"? and the same question for "Neo-Nazi" to "white supremacists and other racist (etc.)"? ħuman ^{be in} 23:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I think WAY over here ----> is the FAR right. CЯacke®

I do. I think "Fourth Reich" is the clearest and most suitable title. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 11:52, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Is the issue just about white racism or racism/supremacism in general? Although I can't come up with many examples off the top of my head - perhaps Arab demonization of Jews, or Japanese nationalism - we should decide what the target is. For us, I guess the white English-speaking white supremacists are going to provide the most material. Genghis^{clickin' those ads} 05:02, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes, and yes. And yes. Although we probably will kill this WIGO for being dead and boring and representing such a tiny number of idiots. ħuman ^{be in} 05:05, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Unfront paging WIGO4R

I am not convinced this is a worthy "wigo" project. My understanding is that it was an early attempt to capture what WIGOCP is and extended it to another site. Metapedia was used because it was "another wiki." But that site is just not active enough to justify it's own WIGO. And any other neo-nazis/white supremacist issues can easily be folded into WIGO clog or WIGO world. I think this just dilutes our efforts to build the other WIGOs for very little return. I don't think it showed be deleted but just removed from the front page and link template. If for some reason we get a lot of metapedia or other neo-nazis entries we can resurrect it. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 11:33, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. WIGO4R was intended to be for any online communities who fell into the Nazi category. Metapedia was just the first example we found, and was used as a sort of springboard to test out the WIGO4R concept. I agree that it isn't currently justified in being on the front page, though. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 11:52, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

If it is not doing well the frontpage is the best place for it. Most people are not going to hunt through the wiki hoping to find a page to laugh at racist wingnuts on. If we give them on up front they are more likely to use it. π 00:43, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

The trouble is, even when it was spawned and the excitement and energy was there, there just was no real info to dig out and report on. Let's face it, neo-Nazism is a tiny, tiny group of crazies, who can probably be covered perfectly well at WIGOclog and WIGOworld. ħuman ^bean 01:50, 28 July 2008 (EDT)