Forum:Liquid threads in the Saloon Bar

< Index | Site-related discussion

Trent and Armondikov have stated the amazing space savings of LiquidThreads, and the need for this. If you disagree please send in your donations for more/bigger hard disks, installation, and maintenance fees.

It also will eliminate edit conflicts.

You may want to increase the visibility of threads. Go to Special:Preferences and scroll to the bottom (Threaded discussion).

Next I will make poll. Unicow (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You must be logged in to set user preferences. --93.106.181.142 (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Start using LiquidTreads on the Saloon Bar?

Yes

• Unicow (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The weasel had a better idea, especially for now. Make an alternative location for LQT (see next vote). Unicow (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• The pros (storage space, end of edit conflicts, the ability to hide revisions) compared to the cons ("I don't like it!!") go way in favour of the pros, and after a couple of months, it won't be an issue, we'll be used to it. I say use it here, on talk pages, WIGO talk included. ^EXTERMINATE 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right, that's right; ignore that there were any actual reasons given for opposing it, such as that it violates the principles of REST and having a human-readable source format... ListenerX^TalkerX 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Occasionaluse (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• It would eliminate edit conflicts, make the saloon bar less of a hazard should some rogue delete it, eliminate the need for Pibot's automatic archiving. Absolutely we should switch it to LQT. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think Nx fixed the most glaring problems. It's pretty good now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. probably not on WIGOs. Тиранес^{revolt exhaust pipe, bake VCR?} 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Fuck it, I'm sticking my name here. ^{d hominem} 19:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• But I would also be fine with an alternative LiquidThreads SB-esque page. Blue (is useful) 21:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC) meh. Blue (pester) 04:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No

(I assume you will be DONATING. Please make your checks payable to the RationalWiki Foundation.)

• ListenerX^TalkerX 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC). Yes, I do donate from time to time. Does that mean I don't have to use them?
• Sorry, but if you can sort out the format then I'm fine with it. And yes, I've donated three times over the years. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• "I don't like it" is actually a pretty good reason not to do this, other issues aside. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Jeeves and Bob convinced me. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 14:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per here, the SB would be an awful place for it, at least not until it's a lot further along than it is now. -- Kels (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• I wouldn't object to an alternative SB in LQT (as I suggested further down this page) but don't want to lose our existing SB to it. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Goat

• ^{d hominem} 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Meh.

Though could someone bung this in the relevant forum space so I don't need to see the insatiable shit storm of a pissing contest it generates. ^{d hominem} 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid weighing in on the liquid threads question, since it seems mostly like flamebait, but since it refuses to die here's my two cents:

LQT is both technically and socially a disaster area and should not be implemented in any of our high volume pages.

Technically:

• It's a hack, caused by what MediaWiki laughingly calls a "parser" also being a gigantic hack. The correct way of doing this is to just have a different HTML output from the parser. But since the parser isn't really a parser, but a horrible collection of regexps that try to transform the page from wikitext to HTML, that's not possible. A decent overhaul of the parser would fix about 90% of mediawiki's problems, but the development team doesn't seem to be able to accomplish this pretty simple task.

If you're so fucking smart, why don't you fix it? -- Nx / talk 23:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"If you don't like it, make something better" is not a valid counterargument, especially when you are comparing a single programmer working in his spare time with a large team, 8 of whom are paid WMF employees. MARCVS ANTONIVS 14:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"A decent overhaul of the parser would fix about 90% of mediawiki's problems, but the development team doesn't seem to be able to accomplish this pretty simple task." emphasis mine. -- Nx / talk 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not a very helpful remark. If the extension is in poor technical condition (while I concur with Jeeves's assessment of the routine that is politely called MediaWiki's "parser," that seems irrelevant to this discussion), that is a valid reason for delaying its adoption. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Jeeves' comment was so helpful... -- Nx / talk 08:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing that a) The mediawiki parser is a complete load of arse, or b) Any moron who has completed compilers 101 could write a better parser for the mediawiki wikitext, or c) The current state of mediawiki doesn't signify gross incompetence? I mean, seriously. look at it. You can't possibly be telling me that even you couldn't do any better. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"The correct way of doing this is to just have a different HTML output from the parser." No, because the problem isn't the parser, the problem is that all the comments on a talk page are mashed together and stored as a single huge blob of text. -- Nx / talk 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So what? Do you seriously believe there is only one true way you can read and write a wiki page, and that's though one big honking text input box? It's a front end problem, not a back end problem. A problem of formatting for display, and presenting a user interface for editing. There are pros and cons to how mediawiki stores its revisions, but considering who the main customer is, the pro that backend lookups are fast and cacheable has to vastly outweigh the cons. Making a page access require serial database accesses to traverse a thread is a performance disaster. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the front end. MediaWiki's way of storing revisions is designed for articles, using it for a forum is retarded. -- Nx / talk 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that depends entirely on your design goals, doesn't it. What you can say about it is that it is fast and more or less bulletproof. You'd have to work very hard to lose significant amounts of data from mediawiki. On the flip side, it's very hard to unsay things that were previously said, and it uses more disk space than is strictly necessary. The disk space issue can be fixed elsewhere by changing old revisions to be stored as diffs and keyframes without impacting performance on the main use case, which is viewing the current revision. You're more or less stuck with the other issue. You could write a script to expunge some defined section from every intervening revision, but I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable using it. Really though, I can't see this as anything anyone would need to get their knickers in a twist about. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, database access is so fast that it's not an issue. The parser is. Oh and btw, it's like having template sigs, so what you have now is the worst of both worlds. -- Nx / talk 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Because it's a hack, it isn't really part of mediawiki. Using LQT is pretty much the same as embedding an iFrame in a mediawiki page and pointing it at an external forum. There is no relationship between the two bits of software.
• Because there's no relationship, various things don't work. Search is the big one. Threads have their own pseudo-namespace called "Thread" in to which all things LQT-related go regardless of which namespace they're supposed to be in. This is a big problem when our content is split between the mainspace, userspace and CP space. Changing to liquid threads means that all these talks will be smushed together in to one big blob. This alone ought to rule it out in my opinion.
• Things like capturebot would need heavy modification and become much less efficient with LQT. This rules out LQTifying T_WIGO: CP.

Socially:

• This section demonstrates neatly a thing we do often with our talk pages, but can't be done with LQT. Breaking up a discussion in to various subheads.
• LQT is exceptionally clumsy with long threads, to the point that, IMO they become unreadable.
• It has no provisions for votes that we do fairly often. Some of our template display styling would also break threads, and possibly obscure the various LQT controls on its right hand bar. That's just hey way CSS is.
• Even short threads that don't end up folding are very ugly. Worse even than slashdot, which I thought would be hard to top in terms of poor readability.

Can we put this to rest now, please? Enough people don't like LQT that it shouldn't be implemented in its present form. If disk space is an issue, lets raise that separately. I can think of quite a simple change to mediawiki core that would go a long way to solving that problem. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. -- Nx / talk 08:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what? We point out that LQT is an ugly hack and you demand we make something better or you'll force it on us? Actually start answering criticisms rather than storming off in a huff and insulting us. MARCVS ANTONIVS 14:27, 5 Februar 2011 (UTC)

"I can think of quite a simple change to mediawiki core that would go a long way to solving that problem." Then why doesn't Jeeves do it if it's so simple instead of bitching about how everyone is so stupid and incompetent that they haven't thought of this brilliant solution?

And why should I answer criticism? I don't care, I only came back because this comment was so arrogant and stupid that I had to reply. -- Nx / talk 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You should answer criticism because you (and at least one other LQT supporter) seem to be of the opinion that the only reason anyone would dislike LQT is that they are a stupid Luddite who hates progress, which is stupidly obnoxious. MARCVS ANTONIVS 15:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that. And if you would care to actually look at the previous discussions, you'd see that I did try to address criticism. But like I said, I don't care any more. -- Nx / talk 15:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you hanging around like the proverbial bad smell? You "had" to reply? So you've left, except when you just have to reply? Isn't there an acronym for people like that, ones that leave never to return except when they just have to? D.T.F. (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nx previously politely responded to a number of points that I raised. Unfortunately I still find the interface too unfriendly - at least that's my feeling. But aren't we getting issues confused? I thought that Nx's recent (hopefully temporary) departure was over something else. I'm not sure why it seems to be getting mixed in with this.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Typical anti-LQT sentiment. Ignoring the myriad benefits of LQT and trying to terminate discussion before your opponent can get a word in edgewise.. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, enough people managed to piss of Nx that he's gone (again, and for one of the longer spells too), so you probably won't need to worry your pretty little heads about things like this anyway. Hurrah. You can all sleep easy from now on. ^{d hominem} 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What happened with Nx? Did he and Human lock horns again? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Some people got up in his face about hiding a bunch of revisions to get rid of some privacy violation or other a few months back in the SB history. Not sure what the actually seriousness of the violation was, so can't really comment on that, but it all got a bit out of hand so he buggered off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nx couldn't spend as much time here as he needed to to be able to control everything as he saw fit. That's why we have him deleting months of SB history when he finally got around to patrolling the privacy violation. Nx not wasting his life away here is probably best for him, but worst for RW. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. -- Nx / talk 23:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here and there I've gotten used to discussions carried out in wikimarkup form. Too bad about the way it uses up storage... Still finding my stumbling way around liquid threads, and if it turns out that there are unavoidable, unworkaroundable PITAs about that style, I'd probably put up with it anyway because I enjoy seeing what the various folks around here have to say. For the most part. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC) P-Foster (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I am agnostic on this question. P-Foster (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One month trial

I propose a one month trial, on Saloon Bar only, of Liquid Threads. At the end of that trial, each side will be able to make a few hundred words in argument for and against the continued use of it. Instead of arguing about what it'll be like on a high-volume page, lets try it. The people who think it is better should surely be able to support this, and the people who detest LQT, if they want to stick by an argument about it being hard to use or unreadable, will surely realise that a trial is the best way to demonstrate this.

• ^EXTERMINATE 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But ... it is being trailed on various pages. And I still don't like it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do. So go figure, I suppose. ^{d hominem} 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Why am I commenting, I officially don't care about it anymore. ^{d hominem} 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For me personally, like I do now with the forums, I wouldn't even bother to try and read SB if it were LQTified. It's just too much hassle to try and see what's going on if you're no involved in the discussion. If you LQTified T_WIGO: CP, I don't think I'd even bother coming to RW any more. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that I usually avoid LQT pages as well. So in any "trial" that happened people who like LQT would use it and it would look like a "success" because the voices against it simply wouldn't appear. Anyway, we went through this before and decided to hold off on further implementation didn't we? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What he said. 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We should expect dogs older than X not to learn new tricks. Anyone over 40 probably shouldn't be voting. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Does that also mean mean that anyone over 40 shouldn't be at RW? Do me a lemon. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, just because your dog is too old to learn tricks doesn't mean it's time to put them down. It just means they're a lot closer to when they need to be put down. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I learned perl at 37, internet dating at 42, and wiki markup at 47. What will I learn at 52? Go duck yourself. ħuman 08:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We could have an alternative LQT version of the Saloon Bar while still maintaining the old MW version. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean having two versions of the saloon bar and seeing which had the most activity?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Having two versions, yeah. Doesn't just have to be until we've figured out which is most popular; we could keep both. The new LQT one should probably be named something other than Saloon Bar. Lounge Bar perhaps. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Eggcellent idea! But I vote to call it the Thunderbolt Hash Café, you know, a place where you can get hash browns with your coffee while you hash it out with your compadrés... eeeaarruum (pun overload). I will draw up ballots shortly. Unicow (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean like what this discussion proposed? ^{d hominem} 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what was being proposed there because it didn't say IFAICT but it seems it would be a messy mix of LQT and the old style. Why not just continue letting people make forums with LQT if they want to? (BTW, there is no way to do a "trial" unless you are going to delete all pages that used LQT. Any page that uses LQT will use it forevar, unless someone has/makes a script to convert LQT pages to regular talk pages.) I'm talking about having one fregan communal page where we have LQT. The main advantages of LQT are for high traffic pages that gobble up the drive space, have edit conflicts, and get stuff archived too fast. So an alternative to the Saloon bar would be the obvious choice. Unicow (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confused question from old fart

Is there some intermediate life form that's more efficient than what we have now but not as butt-ugly as Liquid Threads? Doctor Dark (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an extension that allows you to use a proper php bulletin board on a wiki. - π 23:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a hack, not LQT. -- Nx / talk 08:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of those boards gobble up even more screenspace than LQT. The software they use for chan boards is better in that regard, but it would probably be missing MediaWiki features. Unicow (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Space requirements

If space is an issue, is there housekeeping that could be done to free up space. I am thinking like delete all but the last 10 or so revisions from articles if wiki software is keeping full copies of every revision. ? Hamster (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is not articles but the high traffic pages like the Saloon Bar because any edit that is made saves another copy of the entire page. Armondikov claims that "SB would generate 2.5 gigabytes of data a year" where LQT might only require closer to 10MB. Trent says space is a problem.

If you delete history that removes some attribution (attribution of individuals is given by edit histories). If somebody did something sneaky (edited someone else's comment) you wouldn't be able to look back and see what happened. Arbo (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there still not a reverse delta system for mediawiki you can install on certain pages? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This covers the pros and cons of reverse diffs. Basically the data retrieval then becomes a massive pain in the arse. Say we used reverse diffs and I wanted to check something 150 edits further back, the server would probably scream as it had to computer 150 articles worth of data and then spew out the result. The reason that this works is that the MW setup was made for writing articles, not having massive discussions. So fast retrieval times would be more important than storage. But regardless, that's just a practical advance of threading discussions. ^{d hominem} 19:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but 99.999% of requests (alright, I made that up) to the bar would be for the current version, meaning that the retrieval time is the same, with the advantage of massively smaller version storage data. Most other requests would be for a few versions back against the current version, so not too intensive. It's very very rare for someone to diff 2 very old versions, so I think in the long run it would be worth it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr Crundy's statistics may be pulled out of his arse, but they're probably going in the right direction. If saloon bar is high volume, and its history is infrequently explored, would this reverse delta polarity reversal thing be worth trying on just that page. Liquid threads is confusing me, and has been rendering strangely on my phone. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're in the right direction. However. 1) such a thing would be a major, major hack. And with major hacks come major problems. 2) space is only one reason to switch over. It would only solve the disk space issue... and replace it with a retrieval time and performance issue. ^{d hominem} 22:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

replacing a disk space issue with a server performance one is not the way to go. I was thinking more of how often would someone really want a diff more than a short time ago. I am gonna vote "whatever Trent thinks " on this issue since I am so out-of-date on technical stuff. Hamster (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can outright prove otherwise, when it comes to performance you should assume the worst; i.e., users will do it pretty often. ^{d hominem} 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

For the love of all things sacred

When will we learn to stop responding to Lumenos' provocations? Blue (is useful) 05:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• approving roar from all cages*--ZooGuard (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lumenous is a fan of unending discussions. Even if we implemented it he would discuss whether it was working or not, probably constantly bumping the discussion. He like to "document" things, that is take people's comments to another page so he can reply to it. - π 09:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lumenos is not luminous. In anatomy, a "lumen" is the hollow part of a tube, such as a vagina or a colon. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that the sun's illumination does not shine out of his wotsit? Unique pinion (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Should I take this opportunity to proclaim that you are not a sock of me? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proclaim away, I don't mind. I would like to say that he strikes me as a bright enough fellow. Unique pinion (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote to have an alternative page for LiquidThreads

For the moment let the geezers have their Saloon bar while everyone who are ready to be a part of the future can go to a new location powered by LiquidThread technology. Vote to have an alternative page for LiquidThreads linked from the Community sidebar [and leave the Saloon bar link there also], effective immediately:

Yes

• Unicow (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Whatever. Тиранес^{taste cartilage, swim bassoon?} 12:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• An old-fashioned popularity contest? Of course. Blue (pester) 16:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Sure. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No

• 
• Him (talk)
• Already exists. People don't seem to like threads much. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Antivote: You misunderstand. There are some forums using LiquidThreads for specific topics and these were as active as a section in the Saloon bar. We are voting on having a single LiquidThread page for miscellaneous topics with its own link in the Community sidebar. This way people would only have to click on one link to see all the latest activity (just like the Saloon bar). Unicow (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sustainedvote: To clarify, a "LQT Saloon Bar" thread could be made for this; also, it's already possible to use threaded discussions and/or LQT, but barely anyone does. I don't feel it justifies a third "go here to talk about anything" link on the navbar, though it wouldn't bother me that much (unlike mandatory LQT). ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"To clarify, a "LQT Saloon Bar" thread could be made for this;" That is what we are voting on, whether or not to have a LQT version of the Saloon Bar. Blue (pester) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Making a saloon thread is something that could be done without discussion. The question seems to be whether Lumencow can replace pages and/or advertise it. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Replace what pages? We are voting on having a link in the navbar to an LQT page in some special location (probably not in the forums). Do you realize what a sacrifice this is for Lumencow?!?! These things are not copyable/forkable. That is why Bob liked them so much at first. This is an act of pure altruism for our outstanding and completely unappreciated tech support team. Unicow (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pages" = saloon bar, plus the WIGO and other talk page suggestions. "Replace" = convert them to LQT. "Advertising" = navbar link, etc. Also, this clarification is kind of hijacking the votespace. Though at least this format doesn't have 5 lines of padding and buttons per post. Zing! ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You so crazy, this isn't about converting existing pages, it is about having new ones. I agree on the padding issue. The buttons would be much more compact if they were like in the signature and the threads appeared just like these talkpages. We can sustain your vote now that you have a legitimate reason. :P OH SNAP! Unicow (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Bad idea. See below.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• No, we have a couple of community pages now and the Saloon bar is the only on that has lasted, stop messing with a proven formula. - π 11:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote for what to name it

(If you like one or more of the names below, vote with your signature below it.)

• Lounge bar

Тиранес^{write Geiger counter, negate dictator?} 12:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Lazar plasma future bar 3000

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thunderbolt Hash Café

• Unicow (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC) The future will have none of that nauseous, carcinogenic CSN depressant.

• Bistro? Blue (is useful) 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unicow (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC) These are fine too.

• Fatima. Doctor Dark (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Load o' crap 16:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Shiny thing! Totnesmartin (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weeping Lion. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unicow (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC) These are fine too.
• ^{d hominem} 18:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• ħuman 08:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hall of Liquid –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Symphonic Flush Toilet. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Technophiles' wet dream
• Liquid Fred's - Totnesmartin (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Nice one.

More comments

Meh. (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We should just uninstall LQT and rollback to MW v.1.0. I'm pretty sure that would keep people happy. ^{d hominem} 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Better still, uninstall MW totally and use a news server like in the good ol' days. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Using carrots for quoting is sloppy. You can't reorganize. Perhaps this software is more secure or can be accessed from a more secure/basic browser/reader? Unicow (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Everything must stay exactly the same as it is now, only better. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If we had another solution for edit conflicts, space conservation, and the lack of a need to archive, that might be better. I can't imagine how else we might allow "pages" to grow indefinitely while being infinitely able to reorganize. Unicow (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to know you can have both on the same page. It's just that when you edit the conventional ones it will tell you it's a header and shouldn't be messed with. ^{d hominem} 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm... I was wanting to know where we could actually try this thing?? Its just that noone seems to want a trial until we try it but no one can try it until we have a trial or was this done ages ago? (sorry, dont know where to ask this really) Pegasus (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's running in various places. Try it here for example.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Pegasus (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the future and it's problematic

It looks like we may well be going to run two SB's as a "test". But I have been looking into my crystal ball and this is what's going to happen. Those who like LQT will use it. Those who do not like LQT will continue with the existing forum. At the end of a month (or more likely two) somebody will say, "Hey! Shouldn't we only have one of these? What about that test thing? Let's close one down."

But if both SB's are are active then those who like LQT's will claim that we should move to LQT and those who are using the existing forum (and who probably won't really have contributed to the LQT forum anyway) will have a differing opinion.

In other words people won't have changed their minds much. What will happen then is that neither group will want to give up "their" version of the SB and what was a "test" will become institutionalised and will continue into the indefinite future. And we will have split in half the one forum where - at the moment - almost everybody contributes and communicates with each other.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

... Meh. (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal to herd cats? I don't see that as a problem really. The Saloon is more like a forum than a wiki. If it splits the amount of traffic to the Saloon this will mean things don't get archived so fast, so late-comers have longer to comment (BTW this is never a problem with LQT). If a super-majority favor LQT but there is at least a significant minority (of donors) who want the old Saloon in spite of this, I say let them keep it. Unicow (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The "trial" idea is completely stupid because of that. It needs to be one or the other. ^{d hominem} 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with having two "general chit-chat" pages. It's not like it's an integral part of the wiki (while it certainly can be enjoyable). Blue (is useful) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree. I think that it's the main point of user interaction and community-building on the wiki.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing would prevent those who favor non-LQT and those who favor LTQ from using "opposing" pages. Blue (is useful) 21:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, except that those who most intensely dislike the new format probably wouldn't use it for the reasons they have given. Furthermore, the supporters of the new format seem to have quite an emotional attachment to it which might well tend to make them avoid the existing format. I mean - why have a "competition" between two formats if you then use them indiscriminately?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but it seems that the emotional attachment is more the result of the haphazard flame war that has taken place between the two camps than an actual inability to use one system or the other. Is LQT so confusingly daunting that it is utterly dysfunctional? Is the current format so bloated and inefficient that it is unusable? Of course not, to both. That being said, it seems unlikely that those with unshakable attachment to one or the other will ever acquiesce to using the alternative full-time. Both of these camps are sizable. I think it would be less of a "competition" than natural speciation to split the SB. Blue (is useful) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any great "emotional attachment" except maybe from Nx and Pi. Personally, I'd have voted against having anything to do with LQT when it first arrived, but since then there have been several improvements made and I think it's the way to go. That's not emotional, it's a conclusion at which I've arrived by describing faults, having them fixes, and re-evaluating. The emotion seems to be coming from the other side - largely (not entirely, I'll admit) "I don't like it but I'm not going to say why and I'm not going to suggest improvements".

The pro-LQT crowd have suggested a dual-page approach, and speaking personally again, if it turns out that after a month or so of trials, there's still no consensus, then I'll agree to stick with what we have. What's irritating here is that the anti- crowd are refusing even to consider a trial. Why is that? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

'Cause we've seen it on various pages and don't like it. 21:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the currently prevalent system. But your dislike is obviously more valid than mine. Blue (pester) 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Susan, you've just done exactly what I've accused you of doing: "I don't like it but I'm not going to say why and I'm not going to suggest improvements". Sure you don't like it. But why? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On the current system, I can se a whole thread at once. With LQ it's necessary to click.. click.. click etc. Also: have you tried it on a 'phone - it's unfollowable? 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to reply to a long thread on a phone? I have. And if you get an edit conflict you're pretty much screwed - have fun scrolling through the entire saloon bar on a touchscreen, and copy-pasting your reply from one box to the other. That's one of the reasons I dislike the current system. But obviously your dislike is more valid, since I'm just a nerd who likes to play with shiny new toys. -- Nx / talk 05:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Susan wrote 99% of our help pages on a portable device (while homeless and dancing backwards in high heels). Her commentary is worth 10x anyone else's, I think. ħuman 08:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the help pages are not discussion pages. -- Nx / talk 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it incredibly hard to believe, Susan, that LQT is more difficult to use on a phone. For one, to not have to worry about edit conflicts is a goatsend, for the reasons Nx mentioned, and also, with LQT you don't have to scroll through a wall of wikitext to place your comment. And since most devices don't have a monospaced font, I find it impossible to put the right amount of colons when there gets to be a large amount of them. Blue (is useful) 05:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Improvements? Use the present system - you can't polish a turd! 22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You can change your preferences to show the whole thread - or at least, up to 99 levels deep. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the settings are under the "Threaded discussion." tab. Blue (pester) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To bring this particular section back on track - having a one month test would be a very bad idea.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To adopt the same, frustrating, logic of the anti- crowd, no it wouldn't. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my explanation at the top? Can you tell me where I went wrong? I'll be happy to be mistaken. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. Did you read my (admittedly indented reply) "if it turns out that after a month or so of trials, there's still no consensus, then I'll agree to stick with what we have."

To be clear: I'll keep LQT on my talk page, and other people who like it should be able to do that too, but further discussion on a switch should not take place until a major version release adds new and/or improved functionality.

If a month is too long, let's say two weeks. Or a week. Back in your court. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. This is not going to work, and LQT is not ready - there's no point in asking people to try it out again, since they've already done that and they've pointed out the issues they have with it. Only when those issues are solved can another round of testing begin. -- Nx / talk 05:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Weeeeell if the plan is to get it "ready" first and then BAM! Saloon bar or every talk page has LQT on it, I think that won't go over very well. On the other hand, many of us want to use it now so why can't we have a teeny weeny little link in the navigation bar?

I think LQT works good enough now. The only significant problem is that it occasionally loses posts but they are almost always there when you click "back" and that is easier (and far less common) than fixing an edit conflict. There just needs to be a warning so people will know to click "back".

Others might sniff around the LQT lounge and find they must comment now and then. Then they start to find assimilation is nearly painless aaahhhh yes nearly painlessssss... 100101010110010001011 <end transmission> Unicow (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Single issues

Subsections vs versatility of threads

"This section demonstrates neatly a thing we do often with our talk pages, but can't be done with LQT. Breaking up a discussion in to various subheads." JeevesMkII 20:28, 4 February 2011

That seems to be one of the biggest disadvantages IMO, but instead we would have the ability to split threads and make them into new topics without breaking links to them. Perhaps there is a way to distinguish subtopics using categories or something? Regular MediaWiki pages could be used as outlined directories to notable LiquidThread topics. But if most people wanted things really organized they would use the rest of the wiki. The Saloon bar is more catered to chaotic breaking news or ideas. Unicow (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You can split them by dragging threads about. In fact, it's probably easier that way and doesn't mess up as much. ^{d hominem} 19:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just done it and reattached them on my talk page. Issue solved. Next? ^{d hominem} 19:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Long threads unreadable

"LQT is exceptionally clumsy with long threads, to the point that, IMO they become unreadable." JeevesMkII 20:28, 4 February 2011

Anyone who is not on a very slow connection or maybe using an incompatible device should make the visible threads much larger. Go to Special:Preferences and scroll to the bottom (Threaded discussion). I'm going with max reply depth 60, max replies 300, but I haven't tested this. Perhaps the default should be increased?

Those using LQT should get used to the idea of splitting threads so they aren't so long. Wikis/LQT allow us to rearrange others work. That is one difference/advantage as compared with usual forum software.

An undent (one of these things: ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘) is awkward with LQT, but splitting threads works better because you can still reply to any post. Unicow (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If anything, the current system is clumsy with long threads. The text walls generated on the active talk pages have far less readable than any forum-based software will ever have. Considering the indenting, the subsectioning and the srolling down to find where you want to stick your comment the idea that LQT is more clumsy with respect to this is absolutely laughable. You might not think it's an issue but that's because you're used to it - new users (anyone remember being a new user?) inserting themselves into the media wiki way of working usually end up with their comments all over the place. I don't think this is even an issue to be addressed. ^{d hominem} 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Text "walls", or more properly, "towers", are moments of pride to the participants. ħuman 08:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Has a way of archiving LQT threads been worked out, & is something a bot could do (like Pibot does)? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

LQT does it automagically. Blue (is useful) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Like a traditional bulletin board, older threads just get paged out. It means it's a) automatic and b) easy to resurrect a thread if needed - particularly in a high-volume and fast turnover page. ^{d hominem} 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And is there a simple way of making them "sticky"? And putting personal comments at the top of a user page? I just went to Stumpenous' talk page and it was unreadable. A while back I came out in favor of LQT, but it was mostly to destroy RW. Now I like RW again, and I think LQT is the stupidest thing I have ever seen on a wiki. ħuman 08:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To make "sticky" put a link to the thread in the header. If not noticable enough, make big. Unicow (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stepping in

Here is the issues, liquid threads as currently released and maintained by third parties was resoundingly rejected. Significant changes were made by nx. These changes are not part of the the release candidate being maintained. Nx has stated that he no longer is able to provide the support he was. That means there is no liquid threads extension that we are willing to use that is being actively maintained. Until such a time as the currently maintained version incorporates the changes nx has implemented, or someone else steps up to maintain our fork of liquid threads there is little point in discussing broad usage.

The issue of "space" that has received a lot of play time is not an acute issue. It is something we should be thinking about, but we are not in danger of hitting reasonable caps for now.

I think we its current use is okay, people can choose to use it on user talk pages, forum pages, and perhaps other sub-forums such as debate or essay at the original authors discretion. I think this allows people to continue to get used to it, and to notice issues with it that need fixing. And we can keep those in mind until such a time that a usable and maintained release candidate is made available. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I would agree, it would be unwise to adopt wide use of a beta, especially given Nx' departure. I still would strongly disagree with those who may think that nothing is wrong with the present talk system; eventually, I think we will need to replace it, not necessarily with LiquidThreads, but with something LiquidThreads-esque. Blue (pester) 17:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of my bugfixes I've sent upstream and they're already in svn. One major issue is that signatures can be edited without leaving a trace in the edit history. I've made hackfix for that, but that's not an ideal solution. -- Nx / talk 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are old page versions compressed in the database? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that I like Trent's opinion here the best. While I think having LQT in the higher use talkpages is an excellent idea, if there are still bugs to be worked out on LQT then the best option would be to let it be used on lower-use talkpges until these bugs can be worked out so that people can get used to using LQT on the Wiki. Seems to make all too much sense, in my opinion. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Liquid threads migrating to Mainspace!

I note that someone has taken it upon themselves to use liquid threads in a mainspace talk page. This stinks! 17:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Weird. How did that happen?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone made it happen 18:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So it was Gooniepunk2010? How do we correct that?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Goonie broke the rules and needs to be banned for life now. ^{d hominem} 18:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hanging's too good for him. 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do we care? Тиранес^{An pyrrhic, yet seize lowbrow?} 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that his right to vote in the UK should be withdrawn as he broke the social contract.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

He lives in Minnesota. Question still remains unansweredТиранес^{An laughable, yet burn couch potato?} 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because LQT causes cancer and lowers house prices. ^{d hominem} 19:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

... Why do I not believe you? Тиранес^{An female, yet sanctify tire?} 19:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because LQT is still in alpha or possibly beta stage. 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Your question was, "Why do we care?" I care because my innate humanity causes me to suffer. Sad but true.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) so is the vote system on WIGO, if I remember correctly. Bob, there is a cure for you condition. Тиранес^{An apathetic, yet burn cinderblock?} 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And beta quality media wiki hacks also push the Muslim agenda. ^{d hominem} 19:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My condition - life - is incurable. But if LQT can cure it then I will will support it with all my intellect. Ok , not much of a promise but it's the best I can do--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to caring. That is easily curable. Тиранес^{An defective, yet throw echinoid?} 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a difficulty with caring? Why?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have difficulty caring about having. What? ħuman 08:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

An evil plan [to welcome new users with LiquidThreads]

For those who haven't noticed: [1]. Protip: when creating a page, fill the summary if you don't want to display the page's contents in the log. ;) --ZooGuard (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yarr. :) I be havin no subtlety. Therefore me be havin to kill ye. FIRE THE CANNON!!!Тy^Talk. 19:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. Unicow will make poll:

Vote: Should we welcome new users with LiquidThreads?

Put it in the welcome template (if possible) or make it manditory

• Boooo! Unicow (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Let anyone do it if they want

• Yay! Unicow (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Forbid welcoming new users with LQT and revert anyone who tries

• Boooo! Unicow (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Try out LQT on a low to moderate traffic mainspace page. Not a high traffic page like Saloon Bar of the WiGOs. Possibly more than one, if it comes to that, but I'd personally prefer to start small. That way, we can see how it functions in mainspace without it being a huge deal to everyone (i.e., easier to unwatch if you want, different sort of conversations than on talk pages, easier to go back to the old version if it doesn't work right, etc.). Decision on what page(s) would be pending whether people think it's a good idea or not.

Yea

• Kels (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Тy^Talk. 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC) WIGOs and the saloon bar are in project/CP space anyway. Тy^Talk. 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nay

• My position on LiquidThreads is evolving. I don't think it is ready for use on any high-use page; it is still in beta, and has a number of bugs. Until the extension is listed as stable on MediaWiki, or at least until it is no longer beta, it is simply not ready for high use. Also keep in mind that our version of LQT is not the official version. Blue (pester) 01:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Um...that is why I said not to use it on high-traffic pages, but to try it out on something with much lower traffic. -Kels (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I think I'm misunderstanding myself here. My point was that even if we try it on low-use pages, we still should not implement it elsewhere, even if we like it and the trial is "successful." Blue (pester) 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, none of what I've written here has made any fucking sense. Never mind then. Blue (pester) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nay. (This is like voting in Quebec referendums, isn't it? Keep proposing votes until you get one you like.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pointless to try it out on more pages... we already know what the problems are, those problems need to be fixed before any more testing occurs. Unfortunately, the LQT devs can't even be bothered to review and apply the patches I sent them. -- Nx / talk 07:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

BASTARDS!!! I say we all start telling everyone you are the REAL official LQT dev and they are just a bunch of phony management parasites. Unicow (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unicow (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC) How are we to "try it out" without it being there forevar? I mean you can convert each thread to a link and do away with the Contents page but they are still links to LQT pages. We are trying it out on personal talkpages. What mainspace page has moderate traffic anyway? You tak'n 'bout an article talkpage? It is weird to put LQT on just some article talkpage. (Weirdness is something I am strongly opposed to.) Someone who comes around after all this is forgotten will be thrown off to find some random mainspace page, different from all the others. I can't believe someone would even suggest such a preposterous idea while we have a much better proposal above. The main advantages of LQT are for high traffic pages that gobble up the drive space, have edit conflicts, and get stuff archived too fast. An alternative to the Saloon bar would be the obvious choice. MediaWiki works fine for article pages which have such a narrow focus that there isn't likely to be a great deal of traffic. Problem is you kids put like half the wiki edits on one damn page like it is a forum/chatroom. That is what LQT is suited to. Unicow (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lumenos, I fully endorse the last sentence in Pi's reply here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I guess expressing an opinion on this subject is not what certain people are supposed to be doing here. Are my udderings the Wong shape or size? We shall see how unpopular are my ideas after I transform into a beautiful princess! Unicow (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Expressing an opinion is fine. Keeping the discussion going and going and going and going after everybody else has come to a sensible conclusion is trolling. Now troll somewhere else, please. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Who put LQT on a mainspace page? Who created this section? Who participated before I got here? How is this ALL MY FAULT? Am I the puppet master? You are keeping the discussion going, but not by adding anything to it; just by complaining that anyone is discussing. Here is a novel idea, if you don't want people to discuss something, don't discuss it yourself! Or is this a joke where you know that already? Have I been lolcowed? I can't tell, nor do I care. Unicow (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Suggestions

A moratorium on this subject for the next six months - till August

• --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because if we stop looking at it it will go away? Or are you hoping Nx will come back by then, if he comes back for good, and fix them? Or will MW fix them by then? Тy^Talk. 13:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm tired of talking about it. It gets constantly rejected yet it keeps coming back to cause more HCM. Let's just give it a rest. Anyway, who knows, people may change their increasingly entrenched positions if it's not pushed so relentlessly for a while.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Valid point. Тy^Talk. 13:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is a fucking brilliant suggestion, why has everyone not voted for it. - π 11:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Fair enough, I'll throw in. My main idea above was to do something to short-circuit people willy-nilly tossing it in random places (like the Main Page incident). I've come to believe it'll happen one way or another, even though I'm not a big fan, so better to do it in a more controlled fashion. But if holding off does some good, I'll go with that happily. --Kels (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Much as I've grown to like LQT, it's clear there's no support for change. Six months though? What if Nx's patches are applied and other problems are addressed? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)\

Then it would be worth talking about. There currently a group that likes it and a group that doesn't. Unless there is something new nobody is going to change their position. - π 01:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nay. Those who want to discuss will discuss and those who don't, won't. This isn't a real-time (audible) legislature where we all are supposed to do everything at the same time. Those are the governments of cave men. Electronic "democracies" (like Wikipedia) are supplanting the old governments, because they are far more advanced. Unicow (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• A six-month moratorium? Awesome, I'm in. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• If nobody is a dick about it, this would help things. Blue (pester) 03:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)