RationalWiki:Saloon bar

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.

edit

RW financial update (stIcKy)

As some may remember there was a strike called at my university. The whole long protracted story of what went down is somewhat interesting and worth sharing (I think at least) once things have settled down enough that I feel "safe" in doing so. The gist of the situation is though I have lost about 35 percent of my pay this month due to the strike action. This is going to lead to two consequences for RationalWiki that I wanted to pass along:

1)Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month my solution is to run away to home for the holidays as early as possible and leach off my family for a month. This means I will be physically away from the server for close to a month. Everything has run smoothly for over a month now so I am optimistic there won't be a problem, and if there is we have more tools available than last time to try and fix it. But its something to be aware of.

2)I like to keep about $150 in RW funds in reserve to cover any emergencies. We have about $120 at the moment, however, I am going to have to tap into this to pay for the internet connection for December. Probably on the order of about $60-$70. Leaving our reserve about $100 short. So if you have not tossed a few bucks RW's way in a while it would be great if you considered it. There is no need for the funds right away, but I would like to get things back up to the $120-$150 range by January.

That's about it. tmtoulouse 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bummer about the lost pay. I am in a similar position as you are at my university and (though there is no hint of a labour dispute at the moment) I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the whole shebang. I am somewhat ashamed to say that until a few moments ago I had never tossed any bucks RW's way. I've enjoyed this site for more than a year, and it's certainly worth keeping online. Thanks for all your hard work.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't afford to donate again at the moment, but get paid in a couple of weeks so should be able to throw you another £20 then. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we wanted to contribute, how would we do so? MDB 14:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

here Bob Soles 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we word the little 'Donate' section on the sidebar more strongly? I suggest "Donate much needed funds to RationalWiki' or somesuch. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I find the donate section practically invisible. I didn't reven realize it was there till now. Which is normally good -- I wouldn't want the site to be reminiscent of PBS during pledge week -- but I was barely aware you even solicited donations. MDB 18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some formatting to MediaWiki:Common.css to make it stand out some more. The wording is at MediaWiki:Sidebar (only plain text works there, but it can be styled via css). Suggestions are welcome. -- Nx / talk 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What does PayPal charge you to receive donations? Fedhaji (Talk) 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a whole lot, it scales depending on the donation, a few cents on the dollar mostly. tmtoulouse 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Donations get solicited every now and then, usually when Trent is strapped or news something new and shiny. This is one of those times. ^bomination 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Trent does FAR too much for this place, and if you appreciate his dump, hurl some cash his way. I've added some jaunty copy to add to the nice new loud orange panel. Suggestions welcome. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not a flashing orange banner across the top of every page, with randomly selected entreaties to pony up? ħuman 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, if it means Trent isn't licking dogfood out of cans. Whatever it takes. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating a bit... have you even read what he said about the state of the RW finances up above? While I agree fully that RW shouldn't cost him any money, going into a sudden panic over the wording of the donation link is just silly. If you think it can be better, let's come up with something better at the sidebar talk page and install it. ħuman 8:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Exaggerating? Trent did say he may not able to pay his rent after all? Whatever. Anyway, I'm not "going into a panic", but I certainly see only benefit from rewording the currently lame call to action that is our Donations box. "Join the supporters"? If we had supporters, we wouldn't be needing to make a call out - the problem is we DON'T have supporters. The box clearly wasn't doing any work for us, as per MDB's comment above - even a long term user like him didn't even know how to donate. That's hardly a functioning system. Why not a 'Donate' bar permanently mounted above Recent Changes too? Maybe we can have some vote widget fun and vote for slogans? Can someone do that? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You fail at reading comprehension. "Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month" followed by his solution to no food money - go home for the hols. And the reason for the month's poverty is not RW it's the strike he was dragged into (and encouraged in by some of us). But I'm all for vote widgets and slogans. Chances are you'll have to figure them out yourself (hint, find one you like and copy the code) though. ħuman 04:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget folks that you can take out a RationalWiki subscription and pledge Π dollars (or multiples thereof) per month. This may not solve Trent's immediate predicament but pledging $6.28 (about the price of two pints) a month adds up to $75 a year. Half a dozen new pledgers could make a significant difference. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a PayPal account needed for the subscription, or is there another way of doing it? I've chucked in a donation, but would find it a lot easier if I could just set something like $10 per month.--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

IT would be easy to set up a standing order. Now, all I require from you is your bank account details and sort code. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Slogans

As per Doggedpersistence's suggestion above, here's my humble suggestions for a "Give to RW" slogan:

• Don't donate to RationalWiki until you hurt. Donate to RationalWiki until Conservapedia hurts.
• Donate to RationalWiki. The mind you save may belong to a homeschooler who will grow up to cure the disease that's going to kill you.
• Donate to RationalWiki, because Andrew Schlafly's mind already is a waste.

MDB 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't those all a bit CP-centric? Well, maybe not the second one... ħuman 00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Donate to RationalWiki! We won't go down on you, unless you pay us extra! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New template system (sticky)

Hi all. By now you might have noticed a bit of goings on so allow me to explain what the fight is about.

Nx has created a base template called Template:Messagebox, it has a very well defined style of an image with text to the right of it. As part of the re-branding he has given it a water mark background of the RationalWiki brain.

If you are seeing this instead of your message, type 2= before your message.

Under no circumstances should anyone edit this template. It has been used on nearly 6,000 pages, most notably on all CP screenshots (of which there are over 5,600 you obsessive people).

What makes it awesome is there is no need to edit it. There are three parameters. The first is the image, you can choose one of about 9 or add you own as you normally would. Parameter two is the text. Examples:

The optional third parameter is the class. This parameter is hugely powerful option that loads all the templates style parameters. Several are already set up in the common.css, you can add them on indefinitely. This has a huge number of advantages

1. Savings on the server load, as when you edit the style of a template in the common.css it will not get added to job queue. User will see the changes as they update their style sheets (you computer will do this, but you can force it by using ctrl-F5).
2. Consistency in the style of the wikis templates making us look more professional.
3. It looks like MediaWiki will be changing over the next few versions. This should hopefully keep us a head of the curve, especially if the old html tags are phased out.
4. If you are using an unusual set up, say those new widescreen monitors I am to poor to afford, you can customise the appearance using your own monobook.css

Basically do the mob like this new template system? Keep in mind all it actually is a box with a picture on the left, with text to the right of it, everything else is customisable in the common.css. - π 07:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell yes. Forward Nx a drink from me for the hard work! I really like the water mark, it's subtle features like that that makes me think "21st Century Internet" rather than the fairly bland and plain feel you get from websites that just seem just short of a decade behind the times. ^bomination 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me. The water mark is a lovely touch. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay here a few examples:

This project page has been nominated for deletion. The reason given is "it lacks goat". Please discuss this assassination attempt on the talk page.

This page is dead, but is being retained as an archive. Please do not edit it! This page has either outlived its usefulness, or, through neglect and/or disinterest, become unused. If you wish to reinvigorate it, bring it up on the talk page.

As a confirmed mustard jar for taking on this job as a Sysop on RationalWiki: I pledge to only block users if they ask for it, or insert unfunny vandalism. I furthermore pledge that if I indulge in secret private conversations about you, we will make a formal report to the mob. Is that all? If you impugn my motives without warrant, or challenge my "AUTHORATIE", er, there is nothing I can or will do.

Any opinions when you see them in action? - π 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the technical issues but they look good to me with the exception of the watermark on the white/blank one. It makes me want to clean my monitor.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The delete or sysop template? - π 12:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The sysop template. But I don't think it's a big issue. I like the idea.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We can colour it for you. - π 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The challenge will be for new templates for new editors. If you don't know there's a system but you are wiki-savvy, it will lead to confusion. Not a huge hurdle per se, but it can be expected. Sterile pumpkin 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of an issue there. 90% of anyone making a template will just copy one that already exists as it's just easier that way (even if you are wiki-savvy, in fact, probably more so if you're wiki-savvy). I think people will notice how to use the message boxes and the documentation explains it well enough. ^bomination 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add all the classes to the doc as well. It is three parameters, how can we go wrong? *sits back and waits for the inevitable melt down of the server*. 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS They are pretty. Sterile pumpkin 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You sure do got a purdy template thar DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was so impressed with Nx for this. - π 01:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While this is very interesting and perhaps prettier, I am struck by how differently this was handled than most issues on this site. A template is created, and by the time "input" is requested, it "cannot be edited"? Contrast that with the recent long discussion and feedback over changing the logo. A moment ago I saw a template that did not "obey the new rules" when I edited a page without being logged in. What happens now if someone wants to "support" their new template the easy way, by adding its image and formatting (ie, border style) to the template? Who decided what images and styles would be supported? The current crop are fairly narrow to choose from, I only see a couple of border colors. What if someone wants to make one with a solid green border? Where, indeed, was any discussion on this issue before it was implemented - and implemented in a way that any sysop can now grind the site down to a standstill? In absentia 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there should have been discussion before implementing these, I am struck by how rude some of the reactions were. I would have been pretty upset if someone threw out my work with comments like "smearing bad formatting all over the site" and "wrecking all the boxes on the site" Pathetic transparent sock 11:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an edit isn't really "throwing out work". Those comments were made after two days of simple questions not being answered, in frustration. While I agree quite a few near the end were quite out of line, so is embarking on a major project affecting the look and feel of the site not only without preliminary discussion, but also not discussing it when asked - and, in fact, rudely turning down simple requests regarding the formatting. In absentia 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

More colours and styles can be added it just takes a bit of CSS know how rather than the old html tags, Human. The reason it can't be edit is because it is being used of the new Template:CP screenshot of which there are 5,600 inclusions. - π 05:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there clear instructions on how to do that somewhere? In absentia 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my ignored question. I'm trying to make a template fit the new fascist RW mold, but I don't know how to do it. ħuman 03:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll get there. I am busy with other stuff at the moment, I'll right some instructions as soon as I feasibly can. - π 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While, in principle, I like the new messagebox system, I do feel that we are losing some identity. I recently tried to edit without logging in and got a bland warning icon. Previously we had the 'ceiling cat' and despite being slightly averse to the preponderance of felines on RW, I felt that this added some humour to an otherwise dry yet important issue. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You can revert it. It is just I edit from IP at uni sometimes and have always hated it so I took the opportunity to change it. - π 09:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to do anything unilaterally but perhaps we could incorporate some of the whimsy into the new system? It doesn't even have to be the same picture, maybe we could ask Karajou to come up with something. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

Getting our house in order - the logarithm in our own eye (sticky)

One of the things we criticise CP for regularly is its violation of copy-right with regards to images. Sometime later this week I am going to run a bot across all the image files to find the ones that are incorrectly documented and place them in a category saying that they have no licensing template. To that ends, does anyone know of a licensing template that is not on this list or the Template:Fair use? I am also going to create two new ones, one for work that you upload that is your own private copy-right which you are licensing only for use of RW and those you have gained permission from the copy-right holder for the use only on RW; I will add these to the drop down menu on the upload screen.

BTW, I have noticed a new template saying we don't know the copyright of images and we don't care - that is not really expectable. The onus is on the uploader to check the copy-right status, before they use the picture. - π 01:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"we don't care" Check the edit history on that one. In absentia 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay that was just template unknown before it was fixed. - π 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have now made Template:Rw-licence‎‎. I might add an optional name parameter to it though. - π 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The RW-licence is pretty useful. Might give me the incentive to start making more illustrations. ^bomination 09:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay done - I hope

Alright I have finished running my bot. There is a Template:Nolicence that indicates that the images does not have licensing template on it. If you want to check out what you have uploaded that does not have a licence on it put:

<dpl> 
createdby = Yourname
namespace = File
uses = Template:Nolicence 
</dpl>

in your sandbox. - π 11:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to run the bot again over the less than 30KB images as it seems to have missed a few. I will be doing it in very small chunks, probably after backup has run this evening. - π 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Common images

There are a few images marked with the no-licence template (like this one) that are so common that finding the copyright notice for them would be next to impossible. While "it's found all over the internet" of course isn't an excuse for copyright violation, could we possibly use a different template for these.

This image does not have have an image copyright notice. However, its prevalence on the internet may mean that tracking down copyright information is impractical or even impossible. If you are the copyright holder of this image and do not agree to its use on Rational Wiki, please see our copyright violations policy. This image was uploaded:

Or something like that. It's obviously not perfect, but it recognises the practicalities of the situation as being far more difficult. Defining "prevalence" objectively and clearly will be difficult, however. ^bomination 15:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea. Do we have an name for that template? - π 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can thinking of. Although I think "poor excuse" would be a decent name for it. ^bomination 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial

I think we need a copy-right notice for people that have allowed non-commercial use of their images. - π 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Non-commercial I just create on then. - π 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Autocratic move

I've changed the upload image link in the toolbox so that it preloads Template:Information, because you are too lazy to use it. Bitch here if you think this is a bad idea. -- Nx / talk 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea actually. If we're going to host dozens of images, they need sorted. There's so many that are duplicated or only get used on one userpage when they're taking up quite a bit of space, or could be used elsewhere. ^bomination 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick, but silly, question: what would happen with the bot that puts the image copyright notice on the images if they were contained within the template? I assume it'd read the code and see it fine, but would it overwrite something or mess up in any way? ^bomination 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, you'll have to ask Pi. My guess is it will add the nolicense template to the bottom of the image description page, and if there's already a copyright notice on the page it won't add anything. -- Nx / talk 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic

PalMD might get into print now that ScienceBlogs & NG have teamed up. just the one link: it's all over, over there ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat

The big times at last! CЯacke®

We have another Republican to hit golf balls at

I just created Carly Fiorina. Feel free to add crazy things she's said, some classic fuckups she did at HP, or anything else of interest.

Cheers, The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!}

Mormons and Malfunctions

Why do all bad things happen on the same day? And why is it that only the weirder sects try street/doorstep conversions? ^{— Unsigned, by: Broccoli / talk / contribs}

How else are they going to get followers? Javasca₧ wasn't me! 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Mormon strategy seems to be to have their women pump out as many as physically possible. Fedhaji (Talk) 06:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not the first to come up with that one. ħuman 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the FDIC insure Credit Unions?

Ok, first off, what's the "official" reason for this? Secondly, am I being a paranoid conspiracy nut when I suspect this is an attempt to "unofficially" keep Credit Unions from growing, and thus ensuring that lower and middle class people never collectively control a large amount of economic power?--Mustex (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that there was another, similar agency that performed pretty much the same service for credit unions. And yes, you're probably being paranoid. Corry (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mustex, why do you hate America? Put your money in a proper, PRIVATELY-owned bank, like any good, proper, God-fearin', red-blooded American boy. Credit Unions are for REDS! REDS! REDS!!!!1!!. _{My credit union has deposit insurance through the NCUA for up to a cool quarter-mill.} TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, someone told me they weren't insured, so maybe I was wrong, but if that's the case someone please tell me (and if they are insured, please explain why banks haven't been outcompeted by not-for-profit organizations?). And, I know you're being ironic, but for the record I'm a libertarian, but think that the main problem with socialism is that its SO BIG that no one's individual efforts make a difference, and hence there's no incentive. But more small-scale collectivism (like the Landless Movement in Brazil) can work because the efforts of one person CAN make-or-break the whole system if there's only a few dozen or a few hundred people working. This often makes me wonder if co-ops aren't being suppressed by some level of government favoritism. Have a system that divides up the money between its employees, but that isn't so huge that no one's efforts matter (or is divided up into branches who's profits are determined separately), and they should work harder. Have a financial institution that doesn't have executives taking percentiles, but instead tries to make just enough money to pay off its customers, and employees (with bonuses for good work), and it should be able to offer lower rates. Granted, maybe I just don't understand some factors that are inherent to the real world, and this is just my own idealized model (please, correct me if I'm wrong, I may be a little bit kooky with some of my ideas, but it doesn't mean I'm dogmatic about them). Oh, and P.S., seriously, if anyone knows of an organization that does insure Credit Unions let me know.--Mustex (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice rant (sorry tl;dr). Paragraphs work well every few hundred words, to keep your readers excited about what might come next. Also, to separate your ideas in a clear way. ħuman 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I now see that your post was duped. I deleted one half of it to make life easier for mortals like mysefl to absorb. ħuman 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.--Mustex (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Credit Unions are insured by the National Credit Union Administration. The limit is $250K, just like FDIC-insured banks. I've been a credit union member since 1986, and, to my knowledge, they've been Federally insured as long as I've been a member. MDB (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so I was wrong, sorry. So, why are most Credit Unions so much smaller than banks?--Mustex (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Credit unions have to have some defined criteria for membership -- usually an employer. My credit union is affiliated with a large Federal agency where I used to work. Even though I no longer work there, I can stay a member for life, as could my family if I had one. We've also got several much smaller sponsoring organizations, including a local teacher's union and my current employer. Note that you can have honkin' big sponsors -- for instance, the US Navy has a credit union. However, they can't take just anyone as a customer. MDB (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What stops anyone from forming a Credit Union without these criteria?--130.160.99.1 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Federal law. MDB (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Size and scale of the bar (sticky)

As the saloon bar is massive, I'm wondering if it'd be a good idea to split it into a few sub forums (in practice, sub pages of this page, which would act as a menu screen). The benefits are pretty good, you can organise it all better and probably keep a good level of activity. It might also help a little with server load so we don't need to reload the entire page repeatedly (this has been an issue for me, at least, recently) but I'd want Nx or Trent to comment on whether that's true or not. Downside is that there are more pages to keep track of. ^bomination 09:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. At the moment Pibot is archiving when threads are 40 hours old and it is still long. Or we can go back to using the forums? - π 09:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The forums died when the Saloon bar started. This page is more plusgood because it's easier to load in pictures an' that. Sub-saloon bars? Hot l Baltimore, anyone? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But a decent install of phpBB or something similar can do just as much stuff as the MW page. The downside to using the forums is that it's two log ins and two different ways of working. It could be advantageous as the forums are designed to hold forum traffic so may help with the server problems and the archiving problems. So if the forums aren't a popular option, splitting would be a good way to sort of merge the two types of interaction. I'll think of some categories but I imagine the standard net break down of on-topic/off-topic etc. would be good. ^bomination 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly:

• Rationalism/Pesudoscience (for the odd time when we want to talk about it)
• Mad Fuckers (for the reporting of the batshit insanity of the world)
• Saloon Bar (for general discussion)
• Goat Worship (the totally off-topic forum)
• Sticky page (where adding new sections are is forbidden, but the pages aren't archived)

^bomination 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no no! I like that the Saloon Bar has all kinds of discussions going at the same time, like an actual bar. Splitting it up would decrease the amount of talk because no one would bother to follow all of the individual discussion pages. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's more of a problem than anything else. The bar is fucking huge and threads get archived after less than two days. The prospect of bringing up old topics is practically impossible and some of the interesting or productive or important topics get archived quickly because they're swamped by the random crap. It needs to happen one day. At the moment, the system is like a Facebook group with more than 50,000 members; the messages are impossible to keep up with because there is ZERO organisation and it updates too frequently to keep track. This is especially important as people, you know, work, or have lives and can't be attached to the Internet 24/7 just keep track of every new conversation, at least half of which they may well not be interested in. Fragmenting it on the other hand has numerous benefits, and giving topic titles might encourage people to start more threads, not less. ^bomination 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I think we need more discussion though, and I would like to see what other editors have in mind. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The saloon bar should be disbanded.

And why is that, pray tell? The Saloon does more than anything else to contribute to the sense of community here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It adds to the insular and reactionary culture which is making this place slowly die.

Are you now too lazy to log in, MC? Fedhaji (Talk) 00:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Best reason for keeping it I've seen so far. --Kels (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

From Pi's talk page

As the discussion didn't attract many people, I figured I'd probably go ahead and split the Saloon Bar unilaterally (it gets the mobs attention quite nicely). Would this cause any issues with Pibot and archiving? Adding the Template:Talkpage/Pibot template should work but there could be an issue with searching subpages. The simple way to do it would be to search all the archives of all the "sub forums" (I.e, the saloon bar page itself would have the titles of the search bar, the bartop and the links to sub forums only) but I'm not sure if the pibot parameters would do that automatically. ^bomination 13:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you leave the archive path parameter as it is, it will archive all the subpages to the one archive page. The search box searches all sub pages of the current page. There is a Template:Talkpage/PibotHidden that will archive a page without creating any on screen display. - π 14:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so literally "don't change it". That's good to know. ^bomination 14:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No if you need to archive sub-pages they each will need a template, but if you tell them to all archive to the same page it will. - π 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a split would be a good idea, but I think we should have more discussion first. No need to do it unilaterally and send everyone into HCM. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Armond, we really need to discuss this before unilateral splitting. How about a "sticky" thread on the bar about it? I'm sure the accumulated brainz here on this site can come up with a good way to do it so it doesn't dilute the energy that makes the SB what it is, while allowing us to perhaps slow down the archive rate a bit. ħuman 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is probably best to ask everyone first, however if you are going to do it, the best way would be to put:

{{Template:Talkpage/PibotHidden
|algo = old(time)
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 44
|algo = old(96h)
|archive = RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive%(counter)d
}}

on each subpage. That way they will archive back to the main saloon bar's archive. - π 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will work because of the counter.-- Nx / talk 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It updates the counter itself, doesn't it? I haven't looked at the script in a while. - π 08:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but if the counter is different on some pages, won't that cause problems? -- Nx / talk 08:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It does only add one at a time, but it loops until it has archived the threads, so it should keeping going until it finds the next free archive. - π 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an old man, easily confused and I may have missed something. But what we going to split the Saloon Bar into? And how exactly will it help us?--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep the Saloon bar for off-mission chat (food, music, rl anecdotes, etc.), have a separate but similar page for on-mission or topical chat (anything about cranks, blogging, also news stories, etc.) & a separate place for discussing possible changes to the site (technical, aesthetic, policy), a bit like WP's village pump.

Also, I think this discussion ^ should be moved back to the Saloon bar. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "more discussion" that nothing ever gets done that way. The unilateral action at least gets some attention - but thanks for the comments above anyway. Weasloid seems to have the best idea, it seems. There will always be a place for off-topic discussion. Discussion on cranks etc. (the "on topic" chat) can go on the WIGO pages, though, they're not used much but they should be. Having yet another place might dilute it too much but perhaps if we could integrate it all better, add the saloon bar (off-topic chat) to the WIGO nav-bar. A subpage to discuss new article ideas specifically (perhaps combine with the "to do list" in some way) and also add this to the same nav-bar. Site policy would probably need a new page (or use talk:main_page?). But again, put it on a nav-bar. That puts all the major social interaction points on one navigational template that can be jumped between easily. ^bomination 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this should be on a seperate debate page.

And I'm still a bit confused about the objectives/advantages. If people don't understand or sign up to such a change then they will all continue to go to the same page. What would be nice would be a clear statement of:

• The problem which needs to be resolved.
• How the proposed solution would resolve this problem.
• What advantages (if any) this solution would have for individual users.
• How the split would work in practice.

While I understand that unilateral actions have the advantages of overcoming institutional inertia, I do feel that a general discussion would help get some kind of consensus, and messing with the main point of interaction on RW is not a small step.

I would suggest therefore that: 1) this be moved to a debate page. 2) the debate page be announced on the intercom 3) those proposing the change explicitly answer the questions I have outlined above.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with separating off-topic chat from discussion about site changes. -- Nx / talk 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Other suggestions

Why don't we create a "forum" namespace, and instead of a new section being created here, a new page in the "forumspace" is created for each new thread. That way users need only watchlist those threads which interest them. And we can keep track of all the new pages created by adding one of those thingies that display Recentchanges, and set it to only display edits to the forumspace. It's a lot like what Uncyclopedia does, really. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal

• Each user shall have an attached parameter list, to include the following:
  • Trollhood
  • Wandalism
  • Newbitude
  • Potty mouth
  • Sockage
  • Useful contributions^TM
  • Social butterflappery
  • Trustworthiness
  • others TBD

• Each parameter shall have an associated forgiveness function, in the form of a time decay.
• Any user may smite or uphold any other user's parameters.
  • The weight of smiting or support shall be strongly correlated to the trustworthiness of the evaluating user.
• An overall Fitness Score will be obtained from a convolution of the various parameters and decays; meta-parameters of the implementation TBD.
• It will matter, and users shall go in fear and trembling of their fitness reports being smitten.
• Be very, very afraid.

Discuss, but be concise. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) ^{damn, that was hard to type, what with all the backspacing}

Very idiosyncratic, as I've come to expect.

P.S. You forgot the part where we propose to alleviate global hunger problems by the cooking alive of Irish Catholics.

I'm ignoring you in the following fashion: That is neither part of this problem nor its solution. Have a nice day, thank you for your cooperation. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do hope you understand the Swift reference? ^{— Unsigned, by: some guy / talk / contribs}

Is this like a Dungeons & Dragons thing? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No dice. It's a way of maintaining transparency, giving credit where it is due, and assigning a credible validity score to everyone's input. Or maybe a valid credibility score, haven't yet worked that part out. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)If there isn't a Chaotic Neutral option, I refuse to take part. ^bomination 19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Is this like a Dungeons & Dragons thing?"

"No dice."

I don't know if that was intentional, but if it was, to quote Dr. Zachary Smith or Ship's Counselor Deanna Troi, "the pain... the pain... the unspeakable, unbearable pain." MDB (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can't finagle a way for me to be a ranger or a rogue I want no part either. DickTurpis (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to be a Drow Malkavian Street Samurai. Nerdliness ownage.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Real mature, guys! This is serious psychoceramicpsychosocial metrology I'm advocating here. But if that's the way you want to be, I get to be Gurney Halleck, without having to look or sound like Patrick Stewart. Some other wanker can be Yoda. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no Foundation roleplaying game. Fail.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, you can be the Mule then. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So when do we start eating each other? Can I be Jeffrey Dahmer? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) PS I like this idea. While it won't "solve" any current issues, it's a start.

Dammit, I was expecting Irish babies. I'm gonna be craving one all night, now. --Kels (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Relax, have some caviar instead, get The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover going on the screen, put up your feet, and enjoy! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I want to be Seldon!--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving and never coming back coming back after the new year

Trent won't be near the server! Oh no!!1!1!!! ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ I know Anonymous user deletes through airplanes.

Greetings RationalWiki. I will be leaving tomorrow for "home" and will not be back within close physical proximity of the server till after the new year. Traditionally this has never been a problem, but last August saw a bit of a disaster while I was away. I have made a lot of changes since August and hope everything is in place for a solid run while I am away. If the worst happens, remember the tech blog will be my primary form of communication during any down time. tmtoulouse 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy trails, fearless leader. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The way this place has been the past few weeks, something tells me a week or two of no RW connectivity would a bit of good. Either way, Merry Christmas Happy Hanukkah Merry Kwanzaa happy holidays! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We'll try not to bust the joint up. Happy Christmakwanzakah! Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 00:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Trent, for all you do. Enjoy your time away. Sterile pumpkin 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Trent. Thanks for all your hard work in keeping this community running--I really appreciate it. And I really admire your ability to stay above the bullshit we produce. You rock. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Trent is truly awesome. Happy holidays, I hope your trip goes well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's more likely to be around on the wiki. He just won't be physically near the server so we're relying on all that cool stuff he did in September to keep us up and running. Enjoy your time at "home", Trent! ħuman 04:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

TTFN I'm sure the rig will be fine without you for a short while at least. ^bomination 13:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

James Cameron's Avatar

Well, the first reviews are in, and things are looking good so far:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/avatar-film-review-1004052868.story

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941773.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

However when I talked about this on a forum, I got this 'interesting' response.

"They read like fucking advertisements, I think it would be best to wait for the thing to come out and the embargo to be lifted on all the reviewers who intend to do more than just function as mouth pieces for press releases.

Although they do basically confirm all my worst fears about the plot, it is pretty much exactly the story I figured it would be as soon as I saw the first preview and seems to have that same trite, tired and hypocritical "industry and military bad nature and vague spiritual bullshit good" garbage we've been hearing from the boomer generation all too often for their entire artistic history. Frankly as a proponent of the "military industrial complex" as they call it this is not a message I'm interested in hearing."

Fascinating, wouldn't you say?Ryantherebel (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I saw the first preview a few months ago, my opinion has been the same, and has only been confirmed by these reviews. This movie is nothing new. The special effects look slightly above average, but even then, special effects don't make the movie. The story looks very basic and boring, and I have no desire to see this movie. Cameron got too far up his own ass for this one, I think. Z3ro^talk 14:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit! Humans are assholes who kill the indigines! What a facinating and original plot! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

SF film directors really need to get their act together. All they do these days is regurgitate the same old crap. For fucks sake, read some classic science fiction and or come up with some original ideas. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said. When's someone going to do the Foundation trilogy? Alhough they'd probably ruin it... Totnesmartin (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly they probably would ruin Foundation, since they attempt to shoehorn everything to fit into today's dumbed down mold for a sci-fi flick. What they really need is a visionary and risk-taking director to make movies that preserve the tone and intent of SF works. Regardless, I'm also waiting impatiently for Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Ender's Game. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Foundation has almost no action, and the sum of its attraction lies in the phrasing and concepts within it. It would be incredibly boring as a movie unless it were changed beyond all recognition. Stranger in a Strange Land is a great book, albeit with the ubiquitous Heinlein dirty-old-man stand-in character running amok, and is already in development. The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is also already in development, and we can only pray that commercial concerns grind out some of the libertarian bullshit. Ender's Game is terrible, so are its moral lessons, and so is Orson Scott Card, and I hope it never gets made.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Stranger in a Strange Land and TMIAHM are in development?!?! *jumps for joy* Actually, now that I think about it they're probably just going to turn them into the usual special effects-laden unsophisticated nonsense that passes for science fiction these days. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a great essay on one of the many reasons why Ender's Game is so terrible.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That is one hell of an essay. I agree with most of the points there, although I think some of the arguments in the second section are a bit absurd. Although it makes me want to read Ender's Game again more than anything else. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

They will screw up Stranger and Moon just like they screwed up Starship Troopers. Honestly, I think with the concentration on the "evil businesses/empires/secret societies, good rebels" meme that pervades most movies these days the movie industry would be able to screw up Glory Road, one of Heinlein's more straightforward novels abut acculturation, acceptance and service. Imagine what will happen when they get ahold of topics like sentient AI, morality, religious distortion, salvation, acceptance and the human condition. When it comes to sci-fi movies, I don't have much hope for the genre anymore since they fucked up ST. -- CodyH (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am still pissed about how badly they fucked up ST. The director skipped over all of the philosophically important points and just went overboard with his assumption that the book is a utopian satire of fascism, which is probably isn't. The more I think about it, the more I realize that they will probably do even worse job on Stranger and Moon, since both are heavily related to the time period in which they were written (birth of the 60's counterculture for Stranger, Vietnam War for Moon), and the writers of the screenplay/directors will undoubtedly ignore that. Worse still, I am afraid that they will completely pervert Heinlein's stance on religion as outlined in Stranger and/or fuck up his message in Moon, which (if I am interpreting it correctly) is pro-libertarian but cynical about libertarian revolution. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen ST, but I was disappointed at how seriously they copped out with the ending of the movie for The Puppet Masters, one of my favourites of Heinlein's. Poor sound on the copy I saw too, hard to really get the dialogue. --Kels (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Really the only major scifi book I can think of that really lends itself to the big screen is 2001, which was a movie before a book, so it doesn't really count. Hyperion might make an okay movie, and maybe Asimov's Robot series (the novels, not the short stories. Plus, I, Robot wasn't even based on the plot of the book. It came out okay, though). Let's analyze this:

1. Foundation would need a billion dollar budget to even come out okay, and it would be like twice as long as the LoTR series.
2. A MIAHM movie adaptation would be a slander uon his best novel. Either the libertarian themes get downplayed to the point that the novel loses its message, or ramped up to the point of insanity. I don't think a balance is even possible in a film.
3. Don't even get me started on SIASL. My childhood has been ruined already.
4. I haven't seen Starship Troopers, so no comment there.
5. Oh god, please no Card movies. The books are bad enough. I especially loathe Ender's Game. Just another manifestation of adolescent power fantasies for adults that didn't grow up enough to read non-shit literature. Hate the guy. I've read the essay before, and yeah, I agree totally. Trust me, many of his novels are worse. Empire is a absolute piece of neofacist shit. Actually, I would reccommend buying and reading it just to see how he thinks. It's horrifying. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. Although I think they wouldn't be able to pull of the Robot series, either: to talky for Hollywood. Dammit, why is it impossible to put something in another medium and still have the same message? Or is it just that Hollywood producers don't give a shit about creativity and are just trying to make a quick buck? I'm guessing it's the latter. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Avator=Starship Troopers. i.e. director coming off massive hits directs huge budgeted sci-fi spectacular involving thousands of CGI characters and some grade-B stars in plot you can't explain in one sentence and involving a story no-one cares about. Result? General disinterest. Avatar looks awful, and will not be "changing cinema forever", not a chance. That Cameron or the studio has the hubris to make such a claim augurs well for my theory - generally, the more noise they have to make about a picture, the more MIchael Bay-ish the picture is. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why has no one mentioned Niven? Though I don't have the patience for Sci Fi anymore, credible and necessarily fragmented adaptions of Ring World, Integral Trees and Out of Time each have the potential to make a honking good sci fi movie. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 02:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"2001, which was a movie before a book" Um, what planet are you from? Arthur C. Clarke, meet Stanley Kubrick, awesome film based on great book. ħuman 02:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Scifi fail. The book and film were developed concurrently, and the book was published after the movie was released. wp:2001 (novel) --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Sentinel" came first. And of course you are right, I screwed up on that. Gawd, I am so embarrassed! ħuman 03:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, it would be interesting if someone took a crack at E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman books. Lots of special effects, clear heroes and villains, very visual concept for the most part, cool aliens (Worsel!!), just the sort of thing the blockbuster boys would eat up. Practically writes itself. --Kels (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just got back from seeing 2012. Terrible movie.
Tet said: I am still pissed about how badly they fucked up ST. The director skipped over all of the philosophically important points and just went overboard with his assumption that the book is a utopian satire of fascism, which is probably isn't.
I thought Starship Troopers was a great adaptation. I didn't think that there were any real philosophical points made in it, in general, even if Heinlein was trying. It was not a very good book, overall, since it basically read as a rather poor military adventure story that attempted to make up for its own shortcomings by bouncing back and forth in media res.
Worse still, I am afraid that they will completely pervert Heinlein's stance on religion as outlined in Stranger and/or fuck up his message in Moon, which (if I am interpreting it correctly) is pro-libertarian but cynical about libertarian revolution.
Moon is a good story but a lousy message, so I'm completely okay if they abandon the message. It's very libertarian, but like virtually all libertarian nonsense (Atlas Shrugged, Sword of Truth series) they have to invent absurd situations to justify their philosophy. And even then it's stupid. The Heinlein-stand-in in that book, the old professor, is so full of crap. Vivisect that sucker and make it a good action movie, is my view.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 03:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

@TomMoore: I disagree. To quote you: I didn't think that there were any real philosophical points made in [Starship Troopers]. Come on now, there were plenty of points to be made. Heinlein was discussing the role of the military and America's attitudes during the Korean War. It discusses the perceived dichotomy between capitalism and communism that was so prominent at the height of the Cold War, and like most Heinlein novels it lectures the reader on duty. The movie does none of this. While I agree that the book is horribly written, the movie did not do it justice in terms of philosophical weight.

On Moon: Moon is a good story but a lousy message. I agree, but there is more to it than that. Moon is also a novel that speculates about the Vietnam War, since it is told from Vietnam's perspective. By blending the concepts of Vietnam and the mythology surrounding the American revolution, Heinlein is questioning the nature of libertarian revolution (and perhaps satirizing it as well). True, the libertarian themes are a bit heavy, but making it into an action movie, would, in my opinion, be butchering it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It discusses the perceived dichotomy between capitalism and communism that was so prominent at the height of the Cold War, and like most Heinlein novels it lectures the reader on duty.

I know. And I'm not saying it didn't try to make some points. I just thought it did so terribly and didn't make any. I was not sad to see them excised, accordingly. It's pretty much the same reason it wouldn't bother me if Edward and Bella got their bone on before marriage in the Twilight series; even though the author as a Mormon tries to make the point that it would be bad, I think she does so really poorly and so I don't care if they knock fangs early.

Moon is also a novel that speculates about the Vietnam War, since it is told from Vietnam's perspective.

In what way? Inasmuch as I can see, it just uses a few parallels about situation. Vietnam was also a hostile environment that favored the indigenous, with the war primarily being one intended to make it economically impossible to continue and politically unpalatable to wage. I don't see many philosophical parallels, though. What do you mean?

Heinlein is questioning the nature of libertarian revolution

I disagree. He is questioning the nature of libertarian governments, and instead suggesting that a state of perpetual revolution is necessary and minimal government in between. While distrust of the government is necessary, it's only in the scifi world he creates, with a deliberate devaluation of life, that his points become viable.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about Starship Troopers. Our disagreement is more a matter of taste: I am satisfied with Heinlein's rants and consider it to be legitimate and successful point-making; you do not. On Moon:

In terms of Vietnam: The Loonies are stand-ins for the Vietnamese: a small agrarian society in a harsh environment that does not appreciate being meddled with. Earth is of course the US, a technocratic and rich nation marked by its desire to intervene in foreign affairs, intolerance, and greed. Though the reason for their conflict in the novel differs wildly from the real war, the strategy on both sides is strikingly similar: at one point Mannie comments that the Earth has the technology and resources to win, but they can be stopped if we raise the cost of their victory high enough. This is precisely the strategy the VC used, and it was the basis for their guerilla tactics. Furthermore, during the war the Vietnamese were depicted as backwards, evil, etc. Moon flips this view on its head by blending the image of the Loonies with that of America in 1776, which was a similar situation but it has the opposite connotation. Thus, Heinlein is commenting about the war and how we see it through the juxtaposition of these two allusions.

In terms of libertarian revolution: He is questioning the nature of libertarian governments, and instead suggesting that a state of perpetual revolution is necessary and minimal government in between. I agree, but there is more to it than that. Heinlein is also satirizing libertarian revolution by depicting it as too perfect: the Loonies have Mike, who is way too good to be true in practical terms, and the tone of the book in general over-glorifies the revolutionaries even though they are essentially terrorists. (Prof and Wyoh are, at least.) Once again he uses 1776 imagery ironically to drive home the point. Yes, Heinlein sets up an artificial world much like Atlas Shrugged, but he does make some complex points that are more thoroughly grounded in reality. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I said before that I saw the situational similarities between Vietnam and the moon. I still don't see any philosophical similarities, though. When you said the story was told from "Vietnam's perspective," did you just mean in the situation as the small poor country versus the rich distant one? Because that's obviously true, but I sure don't see any greater philosophical point there that would be lost in an adaptation.

This is precisely the strategy the VC used, and it was the basis for their guerilla tactics. Furthermore, during the war the Vietnamese were depicted as backwards, evil, etc. Moon flips this view on its head by blending the image of the Loonies with that of America in 1776, which was a similar situation but it has the opposite connotation.

Inasmuch as I can tell, he mostly glorifies the American Revolution, only pausing to ding it slightly when it came to scope and the self-interested nature of the revolutionaries. I didn't really see him trying to make a point about Vietnam, except inasmuch as the military and political situations had similarities. You seem to imply he is trying to equate the three wars in some sense, but that isn't the case. Instead, he points out their military and political similarities, but only glorifies the philosophy of the American one and doesn't touch the Vietnamese one.

Heinlein is also satirizing libertarian revolution by depicting it as too perfect: the Loonies have Mike, who is way too good to be true in practical terms, and the tone of the book in general over-glorifies the revolutionaries even though they are essentially terrorists.

I don't think he was trying to satirize that aspect. He does mention that Mike made it much easier than it would have been, and often spins off into discussions of why it could have been so much worse and so much harder for them. But it seemed to me that such circumstances were dramatic necessities... it wouldn't have been a neat narrative with good pacing if it had been more "realistic."

I will be perfectly happy if they lobotomize it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 05:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really see him trying to make a point about Vietnam, except inasmuch as the military and political situations had similarities. You seem to imply he is trying to equate the three wars in some sense, but that isn't the case. I think he is trying to equate the wars, in a way. His main point is not about the wars themselves but about how we view them. If I am interpreting it correctly, he is saying that although the American Revolution and Vietnam are similar wars, our biased perspective makes them look like opposites. He does touch the Vietnamese mentality slightly with that concept of enduring and raising the cost of victory - as I understand it, that was America's view of the Vietnamese response to the war. I take his glorifying of the American Revolution to be satire because of how much it saturates the book and how over the top it is; I didn't think he means it seriously.

Sure, it would have been a less exciting book if it were less realistic, but the whole thing seemed to me to be too easy and too morally one-sided. Heinlein wrote hard SF and wrote some more speculative rather than didactic books (such as Stranger), so why is this one too easy and too simple? My guess is that he's mocking libertarian revolution in that sense, not glorifying it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Heinlein, I'd much rather see producers skip some of his more philosophical stuff like Stranger and Job, and make some good adventure adaptions/updates to his straight YA stuff like Tunnel in the Sky and Podykane of Mars. There's lots of fun to be had there, if anyone actually films it. I recall there was a decent animated adaption of Red Planet a while back which was fun, more of that would be nice. --Kels (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On that note, I'd like to see "Orphans of the Sky." I read that over and over when I was in elementary school, it'd be a great movie. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wanted pages

wanted pages is full of various "amendments" etc - all from a US constitution navbox template thing. Should I bot up and create zillions of redirects, or is someone going to write articles on them all? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the thing to do is do redirects, and anyone who wants to make individual articles can go ahead and do so later. We probably will have someone do the First and Fifth, but I doubt we'll get anyone wanting to write about quartering troops.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How about automating the template so it only lists articles in a category that it places on the page itself? That kills the red links without creating unnecessary redirects. ħuman 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this strange magic of which you speak? We are a simple farming people and know nothing of these things. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I am, in fact, a sock of Bohdan.

Who? Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked the fossil record. It's MC--Thanatos (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DFTT everyone. That is all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, if it's MC, then . I'm sorry I cared. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats a fossil record? I'm telling you that I'm a sock of Bohdan. I have been this entire time. God that was fun.

The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 22:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd believe that if you displayed any of Bohdan's intelligence or humor. Since you don't, I think you make up silly stories based on ancient RW history. ħuman 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And if that really is you, Bohdan, I am disappointed, my Danish friend. ħuman 04:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I am violating my own DFTT rule here, but if he really was Bodhan he would know what a fossil record is. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not even a month, I was wrong. Ceux qui rient le vendredi, pleureront le dimanche.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 08:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF

Go to google, and click on "I'm feeling lucky" without typing anything in. WTF is going on? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ Give a man a face, and he will say what you want to hear. Give him a mask, and he will say what he wants 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a countdown to when the world ends in 2012, of course. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

News story.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It was probably created as an inside joke among the Google staff. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried clicking "I'm feeling lucky" after typing "RationalWiki" and the result was just the RationalWiki main page. Needs more Google bomb. --GastonRabbit (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well what did you expect to come up? CP? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. --GastonRabbit (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"i'm feeling lucky" is just the top google hit, isn't it? Mind you, I did it with "the" once and got Amnesty International. Which was nice. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did "the" and got the Onion. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The google search just takes you back to the original. But anyway, Google in-jokes are awesome. ^bomination 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"the" gives me The Weather Network. But that's Google.ca, not the US version. --Kels (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's sometimes fun to see what the autocomplete suggests for you, but I think we've tried that game recently. ^bomination 16:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)