Talk:Main Page/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 14 October 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

Main Page Design Issues

(Seems like we should probably even have an entire separate page for this topic?) Anyway, this most recent Main page design is also kind of unsatisfactory. Now the Featured Content list is so long it has pushed AT(a)SP and WIGO@CP? links and news completely off the page.

How can we all help to develop a better Main Page design? DogP 22:00, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I have a few ideas - not sure what consensus is on them,

1. Remove the featured section (all of it). Replace with some sort of categories section that would list the categories that are currently listed in the Featured section. Individual categories would list the "best of" that category.
2. Reduce excessive information in the Notice Board section. We don't need to talk about userboxes on the main page. Create an actual page of the notice board and list all topics there (I could probably create a template of sorts to work on interaction between the section and page). The notice board on the main page should be considerably smaller.
3. Place the: According to (ahem) Some People section at the top of the blue column. Retitle: "News According to (ahem) Some People" to improve clarity.

That's all I got right now.--Danielfolsom 13:41, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm dead against point three. "Some People" have enough airtime on RW without their being at the top of a column. --Bob_M (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

1. 1 - excellent suggestion.
2. 2 - absolutely
3. 3 - I like it.

My three cents. DogP

Are you crazy

Why don't you protect your main page? ^{— Unsigned, by: 84.64.143.241 / talk / contribs}

So it can be wandalized? human^{be in} 15:29, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Because it allows people to improve upon it, correct errors and generally makes this site a more collaborative effort. Occasionally we get funny vandalism as well. Why should we protect it? Vandalism is easy to revert. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 15:31, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

For example, the above IP keeps trying to add a link to Liberapedia to the Noticeboard... human^{be in} 15:33, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Waaaaaay too obvious to be funny. You gotta be more creative than that, IP guy! --Kels 15:37, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I am not sure its "vandalism" as much as link spamming, I assume its someone from Liberapedia trying to siphon off of our huge user base :). tmtoulouse ^frustrate 15:39, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

But if all three of us (You, TK, an me makes three) go over there, we might break their intertubes! Oh noes! human^{be in} 17:07, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

It is so dead on that website at the moment.[User:84.64.143.241|84.64.143.241] 08:17, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Copyright

Does anyone know what the latest rant is from assfly?--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 17:01, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

At a total wild guess, I'm thinking something like "it's mine. MINE! And you CAN'T HAVE ANY!!!". --67.102.192.7 17:19, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

New proposal for featured content

Okay here is my proposal, I have used dynamic pages to create essentially an auto-updated list of "Best of RationalWiki" articles. I propose using this under our featured content. Each time something is categorized "best of" it will automatically get added to the content. There are two parts the first part is include only and limits the return to a random selection of 3 posts from a given category. This keeps the front page under control and the content will shift randomly among the best of selection. The second is noinclude and lists all of the content. I propose replacing that with the TOC link on the nav bar. You can see the whole things at:

User:Tmtoulouse/toc

And the "includeonly" part is at:

User talk:Tmtoulouse/toc

What say ye mob? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 18:06, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm, I like it pretty much. Can you link the header "Amusement" to ACD:? Oh, and move CP to the bottom...? human^{be in} 18:56, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I hate it and am thoroughly against it. Any attempt to impliment this proposal will be met with a new wave of pwns unlike anything you have ever experienced. Bohdan 18:58, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I have made those adjustments, and since Bohdan hates it that means its a go. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:07, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I wote eye. CЯacke® 19:13, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Throw a History portal in there and you got my vote. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:18, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Give me three Best of RW history articles and you will get your portal :). tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:21, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I vote Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:20, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I am going to go ahead and do it then, and see how it looks and we can tweak it from there. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:24, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I think that's a really great start to something TM. Something about it isn't quite right yet from a layout point of view, but I think the automation of it is exactly what was needed. Have a banana. DogP 19:48, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I am just a code monkey not an aetheistic person, lay out issues should be tweaked by the more artistically inclined. Thanks for the banana! tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:58, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Let's try balancing the two columns at 50% each? human^{be in} 20:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I did it, easy to change back, of course. human^{be in} 20:18, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I think it might be useful to have at least 3 best of RW articles in each category....so uh lets get going people. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 20:20, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

This is much, much better. Nice job TM & human. DogP 10:42, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Wisdom of the Sages

How attached are we to this quote box...really? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:27, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Let me put it this way, I have actually looked at it once since I joined this site.... Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:33, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

We have a quote box? --Kels 19:34, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

With hard work and preserverance, we can expand our box to a mine (get it? quote mine? not funny, is it?). In all honesty, it's at the bottom, never updated, and rarely looked at. People have to be committed to updating it in order for it stay, IMHO. Quiet, Hobby^Quiet! 19:40, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Forget the damn quote box. DogP 19:46, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I am going to make it "disappear" and if anyone misses it they can bring it back. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:47, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to kill the template page that supports it, too. It was fun, briefly, but no one cares about it any more (as evidence by the lack of changes to it for over a month, I think). I say this as one of the people who encouraged its development and placement, by the way. So there :P human^{be in} 20:10, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

It was fun for a while, but I won't miss it.--Bob_M (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Colour scheme

Linus, I believe, had expressed displeasure with our tinky winky/peter pan color scheme. It doesn't bother me, though I'd rather see purple and green, since it's my favorite color. Does anyone have any issues with the background colors of the two main column sections? human^{be in} 20:24, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

It's very easy on the eye, but, I don't know, it's not very edgy is it? Having said that, once you get much beyond red, blue, green and yellow my color sense falls over. So I've got no more constructive ideas. --Bob_M (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe you could sandbox a couple examples of different color combinations? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 17:53, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I hope you're talking to Human and not me Tmtoulouse old boy. My Wiki editing skills are limited to black type!--Bob_M (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

How about a randomly generate colour scheme? Use the 'random/choose' markup to generate 6 of 0-9,a-f, and you've got yourself some eye-watering shades that change every time you reload. Yum!-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Oooooo. I like it - but might it give the impression of a certain lack of seriousness?--Bob_M (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Seriousness? In our wiki? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I had thought random colors would be cool, too. But not the full palette, more like a range of pale shades, with darker versions for the headers. human^{be in} 13:59, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

We are not going to stop with the random thing till the whole main page is a role of the virtual dice...are we? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 14:46, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

The colors are the only thing that isn't random, aren't they? Oh wait, there's the noticeboard. That should be easy to randomly automate, eh? human^{be in} 16:43, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Any recommended nice hexadecimal colours? I'll make a list. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Uh, sure. Oh, you want the actual numbers? Tell you what, I'll work on it. I'm thinking of moderately narrow ranges, mostly the same "lightness" but 6 or 8 hues. RGB, over and out... human^{be in} 16:43, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, here's a quick example of what I was thinking. The image to the right shows two lightish tones of your basic ROYGBP range - lighter for main section, darker for header. Now, this would be dead easy to implement except for our darker headers - they should match the tone of the section, meaning that the color number must somehow be accessible as a variable, so it can be altered elsewhere in the file - unless a return from a template could have two parts and only one is accessed (ie, ffc0ff,ffe0ff) in each place in the main page.

A broader version could randomly pick any color "larger" (lighter) than, say, EEEEEE (or EEE), and generate a matching one that is slightly darker (subtract 111 or 222?), allowing us the full palette range. Which might be ugly a lot of the time, since that includes a lot of brownish or greyish tones. So I think the "short list" version makes more sense. Now, does anyone know a way to correlate the two color numbers between header and section easily? human^{be in} 19:13, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

One quick note, having looked at the page again. There are two light-colored backgrounds (L & R), and a half-dozen darker headers. It might work perfectly well to have them all just be random, but constrained to lighter and darker. If anyone wants or cares I'll sandbox it at user:human/sandbox4. human^{be in} 19:33, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Ps, don't forget to reload it a few times to get a feel for the range of "looks" it produces. Most look pretty cool to me, with maybe 10-20% being a little odd. But that's us in a nutshell, ain't it? human^{be in} 20:46, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

The rotating colors make me a little queasy. It makes it look like an Easter egg blew up on the page. (Sorry--it probably was a bit of work!) A suggestion: You could try a really dark color with white lettering; that might look sharp. Sterile^{blah, blah, blah} 08:20, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Hehe, well, no one is going to hit reload over and over again unless they want to get queasy. The point of that was to show that most of the random combinations look sorta cool. I was thinking a cross between swee-tarts and M&Ms, but, sure, easter egg-like as well. The work was mostly figuring out where to insert the color templates. After getting used the various "options", I guess I would then ask, just look at a "new" version, say, once a day, or every few hours, and see if it grows on you. And if you get the urge to scrape it off.... human^{be in} 13:19, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Please don't do light script on a dark ground - it's unreadable unless you blow it up to ENORMOUS. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk

I quite like it. And at least the RW logo doesn't change so people should recognize the thing if they come back again. --Bob^{bing up and down} 13:40, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I approve heartily. Sure, it's not quite as eyewateringly fluorescent (ie, yellow text on white writing) as I imagined, but that's nothing that Bohdan can't fix. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I'd choose one fixed color scheme and stick with it, especially for a high-traffic zone like the Main Page. I checked Human's sandbox without knowing that the colors were randomized, and I honestly questioned his sanity when seeing the unbelievable combination of colors I got. I think it was a combination of green, pink, and yellow, or something along those lines. Another issue may be that the multiple colors distract from the content. --Sid 21:13, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Like usual, I HATE Humans plan. Bohdan

Yeah, you're always bitching about something, (you're not my husband, are you?).CЯacke® 21:43, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Whatever we decide to do, PLEASE don't let it be a random selection of colours. Some of the colour sets produced by your sandbox look like Liquorice Allsosrts. It's incredibly stupid-looking and basically just says 'idiots'. I vote for a limited, sober but pleasing colour palette. Let's try and at least make the place look vaguely credible DogP 21:49, 4 September 2007 (CDT).

Keep in mind that I'm not married (hahahahaha I joke with Cracker!) to this random funky carnival scheme. I just made it because people seemed interested, and, well, it was fun to do. Do I prefer it? Not in a way I would argue for. I note that the current scheme we have plays gently off the colors of visited and unvisited links (blue.purple), making it very mellow. If people see random combinations they like, and would like to see implemented in part, feel free to mention. I certainly don't see enough acclamation for the random candy colors here to justify swapping the system in. (Icewedge hates it, too, but made his comment on the sandbox talk page). And, even if I thought I did, I'd still wait several days before changing "our" home page's look. Maybe even cast the net for a wider "vote". Just a few 1/2" chunks of copper-plated zinc. human^{be in} 21:51, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Tubgirl vandalism

Yecch! That was disgusting, completely put me off my 12-year-old rum. 84.87.218.188 15:43, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Category 5 Felix barrels toward Central America

ORANJESTAD, Aruba - Felix rapidly strengthened into a dangerous Category 5 hurricane and churned through the Caribbean Sea on a path toward Central America, where forecasters said it could make landfall as “potentially catastrophic” storm. Felix was packing winds of up to 165 mph as it headed west, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center. It was projected to skirt Honduras’ coastline on Tuesday before slamming into Belize on Wednesday. “As it stands, we’re still thinking that it will be a potentially catastrophic system in the early portions of this week, Tuesday evening, possibly affecting Honduras and then toward the coast of Belize,” said Dave Roberts, a hurricane specialist at the center in Miami. ^{— Unsigned, by: IP / talk / contribs}

Important though that is, we aren't really a news site. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Correct. Did someone spam the main page with that text above? human^{be in} 17:11, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

No, just posted here (an IP). It's real news though, not just autogenerative spam. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Ah, ok. I tagged it. I know it's real, but on our main page it would be spam. No one is coming here to check on the well-being of their hurricane-alley loved ones. human^{be in} 17:23, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Don't we want to broadcast the fact that we're praying for the victims? 'Cause I know that's real important to do. PFoster 17:25, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

KO, how about we add to our noticeboard: "RW editors' thoughts, prayers and spells go out to the victims of all recent and future tragedies. Goatspeed..." ? That oughtta cover it, with or without the goatseed. human^{be in} 17:37, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Martial Law

I'm glad someone else posted that article. I was going to, but I kept putting it off day after day. Hooray for people with initiative! GrandSoviet 17:16, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

One issue with that - the red link on the main page. Can we either unlink martial law or write something smart or funny there? human^{be in} 21:35, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Done.--Bayes^update 21:46, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Hehehehehehe... human^{be in} 21:52, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Done^2 GrandSoviet 21:54, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

What we really need an article on

http://www.headon.com/

Apply directly to the forehead! *smashes TV*

It could relate to either the placebo effect or how the creators of this product fund their marketing campaign entirely with Nazi gold. Seriously, how else could they do it? Nobody seriously buys this product, do they? GrandSoviet 22:26, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Never underestimate the market's desire for useless crap. What's this thing supposed to do, anyway? I note their website is clinically purged of any claims of actual effects. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:29, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, the only claim they make is that it's "safe". As the product is apparently pure water they are probably correct. (Hope Palm doesn't see it. I'll make him unwell.)--Bob^{bing up and down} 09:40, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Its just standard homeopathy crap. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 10:03, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

(I think head on does have "ingredients") I'm thinking of an article on PS in advertising - like extenx "it's not a gimmick - it's real science, or one I heard last night for a hair growth thing contrasting the "cynic" and the "believer" (cynic - my hair is falling out, believer - I use this crap and my hair is getting fuller!). Just for obvious uses in advertising. There is also a lot of automotive woo - magnets, spirals, etc., usually to make huge increases in fuel economy. What thinks ye'all? human^{be in} 14:13, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

People can't tell I've spray painted my head with cheap knockoff Rustoleum®!!! Ron Popeil 23:40, 5 September 2007

Hahahahaha! I inaugurated pseudoscience in advertising earlier this evening. Feel free to fatten it up for the slaughter... human^{be in} 22:57, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Kinda Awesome Unintentional Easter Egg

When I go to Special:Allpages, it offers to show me Lesbian Gang Epidemic-UFO. Lulz. Some pornographic movie producer is going to see that and have an epiphany.--Bayes^update 20:33, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Haha, it's because it begins with a quote, thus preceding all numerical or alpha character files. Weirded me out a couple times, too... human^{be in} 21:23, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Hehe, I missed the second half of your lulz. It's '"Lesbian Gang Epidemic" to Tripe' now! human^{be in} 14:13, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Go tripe! --Kels 14:20, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Tripe is out, transvestite is in! Long live the transvestite! human^{be in} 18:56, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Upsurge in wandalism

On the one hand, this is a good sign. On the other, it is annoying... I think it might be time to force people to log in, and create usernames. Or is this against a fundamental philosophy of RW, of which I'm not aware? Ideas?-αmεσ (!) 13:22, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Im curious what the hell the deal is...--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 13:23, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Me too. Curse you Sacramento! Let's report the city to the FBI.-αmεσ (!) 13:24, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

That site knows way too much about me for my comfort level... Thunderkatz^Ho! 13:27, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I know, me too :-P.-αmεσ (!) 13:28, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I personaly thing that editing this wiki should be kept as open as possible, just my 2 cents. I am not a particularly active editor here though so just do whatever you think is muy bien. NUMBER 13:30, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

We had 'em earlier today:Seems to be a little clann of immature hackers (a cabal?) they dump invisible stuff on pages so it's fairly important to revert rather than delete. See my talk page for the text. s^g 13:34, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

So far we have been trying to make it eay for IPs, to allow those who wish to remain "anonymous". Which is ironic, because a mad-up username is more anon. than signing off with your IP adress. Personally, I'd have no problem with a "joiners only" setup, but I'm not going to lobby for it. So far we've done OK at combatting vandals, right? When the "morning" comes that we discover the entire site fubared by an IP in the wee hours (and considering our worldwide coverage what are they?), we can worry about locking out IPs, I think. human^{be in} 14:08, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

As fair & balanced a solution as I could hope for.-αmεσ (!) 14:30, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

As a side note, do any of the IP adresses used by the wandal(s) have anything in common? 68.54.135.107 15:51, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Not really, check the block log. Wait! Most of them start out 68.54.135.xxx! Time for a range block! Heh, j/k. human^{be in} 18:58, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I think that we should keep the registration as open as possible. Could we use one of those nifty mass-revert scripts that Andy used over at CP? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Would this revert at a stroke everything done by a particular user? That would be nice.--Bob^{bing up and down} 07:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that would be nice. Would it be like an extra sysop button if implemented? Maybe Bohdan or Hoji can tell us how it looks on their end? human^{be in} 14:08, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Leave things as they are? We've got the time zones pretty well covered. It seems to come in waves - an immature wanker finds us & thinks he's being original & funny but soon gets fed up.( I've upped blocking to 31 days) s^g 07:49, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

No threats, too, please, as I think that increases the vandalism. VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 11:35, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

renaming ACD; merging recipe

It occurs to me that the space name is rather opaque, and perhaps a bit insulting when we recommend someone's opus gets moved there.

I suggest renaming it to something like "Amuse" (Amusement would be more descriptive, but more tiresome to type...). Which may not be the best easy, short name for it. But it's an idea.

I also think we should merge/move the recipes into it and get rid of the recipe namespace.

What say ye, oh mob? human^{be in} 16:27, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, the ACD was originally an ironic CP'ism for articles about numbers and letter, etc, and was a convenient catch-all for moving articles out of mainspace. Any other name will do.--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 16:33, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

How about fun? .^. 16:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Sure, that's a good one! I like it, anyway. human^{be in} 16:57, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

MilesEdgeworth

Any idea who this is? Sh/H/e recently delivered a bunch of RW invites. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 22:13, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Who? What? When? Where? How? Ahh.. er.. human^{be in} 00:04, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, and, Linus, can you make the brains at the forums link to the wiki? Or make another explicit link to here? Tx, H. human^{be in} 00:05, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Non mission articles

We've had a few cases recently where articles have appeared where new contributors - for whatever reason - generate articles which don't follow our mission. A couple of cases in point are Kedar Joshi (now deleted) and NSTP (Non – Spatial Thinking Process) theory (now deleted).Perhaps we could use a template along the lines of the one below to advise them of the problem:--Bob^{bing up and down} 06:22, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

{{missionality}}

Template is at template:Mission added for convenience human^{be in} 14:09, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Also, they could be RW'ified.User:PalMD

OK, yes we could do. But have a look at UQV (Ultimate Questioner’s Vanity) theory (now deleted) and NSTP (Non – Spatial Thinking Process) theory (now deleted) which really started it off. Possible to re-write but, I think difficult. Also there would be articles which could never be RW'ifed; and finally the template suggests that the author or others could do just that - rewrite it. Still, it's my baby and I may be being too protective. :-) --Bob^{bing up and down} 09:24, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

I like the template a lot. And yes, those two articles are profoundly strange.75.62.26.189 09:37, 10 September 2007 (CDT)User:PalMD

Rules, rules, Rules! Eliza Doolittle 11:27, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

I could roll with that template, although I'll probably try to prettify it a bit. As far as 24 hr deletion, I think that might be a bit short. And deletion vs. ACD? IP = deletion; editor that does other good stuff = ACD? Not in the template but a rule of thumb. Can the template also be set up to create an "easy to check" category?

Now, as far as those articles, they do look as if they fall somewhere near our oak tree. If we could understand them, as either possible refutations (of barmy ideas) or useful contributions to real science (the trouble with philosophy is sometimes it's a bit, er, abstract... ie, meaningless). I fixed a link above, they both went to the same article for some reason, I think the OQV was what was meant. The titles are also ugly, no need for the acronym in the title, methinks. If we are to keep them. perhaps the IP will (join and) dialogue with us on them... human^{be in} 14:09, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

PS, the STU is a pain, eh? Big back to school day on the 'tubes, perhaps? human^{be in} 14:09, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

OK - "deleted or moved"? (obviously to ACD but we don't want it too wordy) It does give people a chance to react and defend them. And it does tell them what the problem is. I have no idea if it can link to an "easy to check" cat. To be honest I'm not sure what you mean. :-( Please make it as pretty as you like, I'm not hot at at the arty colors side. --Bob^{bing up and down} 05:40, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Service Temporarily Unavailable

I keep getting this:

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

WhatIsG0ing0n 11:06, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I've been seeing this for the past two hours. DogP 11:53, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

What's interesting is that it seems to only affect the wiki, and not the fora. --Kels 12:35, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I noticed that too.--Bob^{bing up and down} 12:54, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

We're not being DnSd are we? SJG^sjg 16:26, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Twas most frustrating watching everyone on the forum, I went to bed about 6.00 (gmt) - just before the genius of Tmt (all hail) got us here. SusanG 193.113.235.173 07:11, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Now all we need is an easy-to-remember address.--PalMD^{-Berate Me} 07:32, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Special Characters

Request: Hold off 'til it's settled down with the special char correction - the correcred version of Schrödinger's cat comes up as Schrödinger's cat on mine. Some ofthe weird sigs are gonna be really weird! SJG^sjg 07:51, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Is this ok: ö, Ö ( o umlaut, O umlaut)? or am I in a world of my own? SJG^sjg 08:08, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

They look OK to me. The only one that is still odd is the cat one. Human fixed a couple link this one earlier.--Bob^{bing up and down} 08:34, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Yo! - saw that in the forum - its ok! D'you mean that the cat title is off for you? SJG^sjg 08:53, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Sorry if I was not clear. The the title of the article about the hypothetical semi-dead cat displays strangely for me. The other test symbols you put up display correctly. I'm not sure if we're supposed to continue editing though, Human asked TM on his talk page if this is "live".--Bob^{bing up and down} 09:07, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

This has now been upgraded from "beta" to "limited release" meaning feel free to edit it under the assumption that it is "live." We await the gnoes of the intertubes finalizing a few things before we can go to full release!

Oh and people should try playing around a little with math. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 11:10, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

The example at the talk:help page works. Yeah!!! human^{be in} 12:35, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

I guess we're sorta in bizness?--PalMD^{-Berate Me} 13:07, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Tò whôm ït måy cøncërn

Should be: Schrödinger's_cat
Displays as: Schrödinger's cat
In URL is: Schr%C3%83%C2%B6dinger%27s_cat

Not right ... Is it! SJG^sjg 13:10, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

OK, added link to make it easier to go fix. Never mind, looks like someone fixed it. Chars like that will always look weird in the url. I hope "Schrodinger's cat" redirects to it... human^{be in} 13:27, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Perhaps we could just rename it the "Pussy Paradox". Genghis Khant 13:36, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

If anything, [[Schroedinger's cat]] should redirect to it since "oe" is the proper way to write ö when you don't got fancy extra keys like we Germans got :P --Sid 13:38, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Pussy power rules! SJG^sjg 13:47, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Shall we create the redirects as people accidentally link them from articles? We all have the "fancy keys" below the wiki edit box, although they are small and hard to read. Thing is, I, for one, as an igggerent norte-americano, would always forget the special "o" if I was typing it. Or shall we make both, now? Hmm, methinks, the latter = smarter. human^{be in} 13:50, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

So, who wants to look through "all files" for other examples of botched character parsing? human^{be in} 13:52, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Not it. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 13:54, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

on it! (Slòwly)SJG^sjg 13:57, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

So is this our final new home then? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 15:57, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes, with one caveat. We are now being hosted on a new server/provider. The domain name just hasn't been transferred to the new IP yet. We will again be RW.com and all the old bookmarks should work once that is finished. But, more importantly, any edits to the IP version (wiki or fora) will be on your permanent record. human^{be in} 16:07, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Where's the fucking Jacuzzi

I ain't running around here naked for mine health!
I'm cold CЯacke® 17:28, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Not our health, neither. Go put some pants on. --Kels 12:53, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Sorry, still milking the goats.--PalMD^{-Berate Me} 20:39, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

So...

How much longer are we staying at this Domain Name erm, IP address? --Hjimachong 20:37, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Tis out of our hands, the intertube gnomes are working on it, but they like their drink...130.113.218.226 20:43, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

slogan: a wiki for rational mimes

I don't get it . . . I thought it was all about the goats and keeping tabs on TK 07:22, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Sssshhhhhh!!! You'll blow our cover! human^{be in} 12:39, 12 September 2007 (MDT)