Template talk:WIGO NAV

	WIGO CP		WIGO Clogs		WIGO Blogs		WIGO World
	Talk CP		Talk Clogs		Talk Blogs		Talk World

So having done the above, it sort of compromises between some visual interest and the labelling. Which is probably the route I should have gone first time around. The mouseover highlighting only works for the 50px images and it doesn't make sense to do the rigmarole of css and image scaling just to get them to 35px over 50px. ^narchist 20:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's definitely better. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it really need to be "Talk CP" etc, and not just "Talk"? I think it looks a bit cluttered with too much text. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the sup'ed parenthesis, e.g: CP ^(talk). On another note, I think it looks a lot cooler without the rollover. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What is going on?

CP	Clogs	The Bar	Blogs	World
(talk)	(talk)	(hic)	(talk)	(talk)

This way you could avoid crap in common.css... plus I think it looks good. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye, that's pretty good, NU. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Concise and cool. Certainly a good thing. ^narchist 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Might want to put some more space between the logos, but I'm on mobile now and can't bear to type in wikicode.. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the "hic" addition. ^narchist 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

hover icons

While sprites and the hover pseudoclass are neato, I don't think the template looks as good with them. The grey is dull and listless. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 03:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about if we reversed the colours to grey on hover? - π 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Are these better? -- Nx / talk 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fix the alignment issues and replace it with that. It's better anyway, since I can make the image and the text link one single link. -- Nx / talk 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are the ones with the slight "glow" on them. Which I think look a lot shinier and might be much better for mouse-overing. ^narchist 13:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Nx/wigonav Ignore the aliasing on the icons. -- Nx / talk 14:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks dirty, but that may be the aliasing. I'd still vote for full colors with no (or reverse) hovering. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the aliasing and didn't desaturate the normal state so much this time. -- Nx / talk 16:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Much better. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

margins

can someone auto the margins in the mainpage-button ids? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand

Can we add ASK and Cz to this? ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 13:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that WIGO:ASK only gets around three wigo posts a month, mostly about the activities of its one primary editor, and that WIGO:CZ has only existed for a few hours & doesn't yet contain anything clearly related to the site missions, I'm gonna suggest no, not at this time. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a sixth icon leading to "Other WIGOs" would be more appropriate, I think that the people who give a shit about ASK or CZ are a pretty small minority. I dunno. ^EXTERMINATE 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We'll see. At the moment even combining the minor WIGOs (including 4R) together doesn't produce the same level of activity as even WIGO:CLOG, which is arguably the least active of the four main ones. So I don't think they should be on this, yet. That said, you can turn the argument around and say that people are hardly going to look at them if they don't know they're there! ^narchist 13:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. My concern is that there're at least half a dozen sites as worthy as CZ and ASK for inclusion on the main page. ^EXTERMINATE 14:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That turnaround doesn't really wash. ASK is pretty much a one-man show, & usually much less funny to watch than CP. I think most RWians know WIGO:ASK is there & ignore it (as with ASK itself). There's some interest in goings on at CZ at the moment, though a lot of it has to do with the site's current problems & CZ debates/conflicts spilling over onto the CZ talkpage at RW. It's hard to predict how much sustained interest there will be in CZ in the long term, & it's of limited relevance to the RW missions. For now I've added CZ to the WIGO fork page, which already includes ASK, & linked to that from this nav template. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weaseloid on each point. - π 12:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WIGO CZ is becoming quite popular on RC, might be a good time to reconsider its inclusion. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, no! I'm not sure why we even have a mission statement any more. sterile steak dinner 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a mission statement for the same reason America has a Bill of Rights, it makes a handy coaster. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium

I think we either need to link - possibly on a temporary basis - to the WIGO for Citizendium, or add some sort of icon linking to minor WIGOs. As it stands, there's no way to get to the Citizendium WIGO from any other, as the main WIGO page isn't linked to from them - and that's bad.

Citizendium's WIGO has been pretty active for two months, if it gets less active, we could always pull it then. It's been a month since the last discussion of this, and it's not slowing down yet.

One useful possibility might be to have a few generic icons - at least one, more if you want to try for some sort of content matching - so that if a lesser or new WIGO gets active, it can be moved in temporarily, and moved out just as easily. 81.159.200.156 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a link to WIGO Citizendium on WIGO. - π 01:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Which isn't exactly obvious - I didn't even notice there WAS a link to WIGO (dark blue and black aren't that different), and one would NOT expect that the title link would list secret bonus WIGOs, anyway. 86.162.109.221 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care, just don't add a broken button to the template. This is displayed prominently on the main page, after all. -- Nx / talk 07:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

What is going on?

CP	Clogs	Blogs	World	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Other WIGOs:

ASK

*

Citizendium

*

Fourth Reich

Thoughts? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 08:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reduce it to "other WIGOs" or better yet "All WIGOs" and link to the WIGO fork page? Then it will work forever. Like me. September Storm (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Reich is defunct. No-one cares about ASK. Citizendium is the only other wigo that is worthy of being on the main page, at the moment. -- Nx / talk 09:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If the only inline link is CZ it's going to look half-arsed. Either we get a new picture for CZ and stick it with the others, or we use this way. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least get rid of Fourth Reich. If you want to make a new icon, start here. -- Nx / talk 10:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I know as much about making images as Ken DeMeyer knows about writing good copy. I have made small alterations to the one I did:

1. The version shown above
2. As one, but with Fourth Reich removed
3. Shortened to only 'Other WIGOs'
4. As three but reading 'Minor WIGOs' instead
5. As one but using 'Minor WIGOs' instead of 'Other WIGOs'

Of course if someone wants to make a new image, it can easily be added to the template. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I want them

Is is possible to do something in my preferences or install some kind of script that will put these fine buttons on my screen wherever I am on the wiki? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. ^narchist 16:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ordering

The most popular link should come first. This is a basic tenet of design. If someone (LArron) can show that in whatever statistically significant timeframe that CP is less popular, it would be alright to move it. I know the cabal is butthurt about this because they feel like their pet WIGOs aren't getting enough attention, that's too bad. It's not the order that keeps your view count low. It's shitty content. Some of you suck at writing. Others have banal/bizarre interests. Take out your frustration on children or small animals. Don't fuck with my wiki. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, we are moving the buttons to try to decrease CP's prominence, so it doesn't matter that CP's the most popular now. Blue (pester) 00:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think putting it in a less prominent place will make it less prominent, only less convenient and not worth users' hassle for cabalists' satisfaction. I'd be happy to try some A/B testing. Occasionaluse (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly "if I'm not mistaken" leaves room for doubt. Changing something this far-reaching on the wiki without a single fucking talk page justification is poor form to say the least. I'm putting it back to its original configuration before Armondikov decided his way, without a single piece of discussion or ascertaining the will of the mob, was better. Let's remember that without even a hint of discussion it's he who is guilty of edit warring. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It was in the Saloon Bar. In two separate topics. ^narchist 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And as the only people who seem to be against it are two self-admitted trolls and someone who told me to "fuck off and die" I think the will of the mob, at least the portion of it worth listening to, is against the status quo and against sucking Andrew Schlafly's cock. ^gnostic 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)No-one thought to put a note here so people that avoided some of the inane shit in the SB could comment? Or was that just too much effort? No intercom? Still no actual reasoning here, just your fucking word? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL to the EC comment: Since there's only myself and Occasionaluse here registering our disagreement with this change, I'd like the edit comment where I am a "self-admitted troll", as your next edit here. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Self-admitted trolls" seems like a cheap shot when there's nothing to indicate that anyone being insincere in this discussion. Frankly, I'm not sure why y'all are getting so worked up over this, but try debating the issue itself without all the personal namecalling & ad hominems. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OU has admitted being a troll and SuspectedReplicant the BoN in the SB was blatantly flaming and admitted to being a there to be fed. But I'd seriously like know why fuck off and die was necessary. I've had it with this abuse, do whatever the hell you want with it. Take it back to 2007 when it was all Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia Conservapedia. If anyone else wants to pick up the torch on this, that's fine, but it's clear that changing things on this site still isn't worth the hassle so I'm out. ^moral 02:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we seriously witnessing a major pissing match over the order of a bunch of buttons that nobody even uses? This is awesome. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear so. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just going to put this here...

^pathetic 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Feel free to discuss the order here or here. Come back in a day if you want to edit war. -- Nx / talk 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you protect it the way it was before people started editing it yesterday, or the way that you want to see it? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The way ADK wants it; until yesterday, CP was on the left. Personally, I think it should be in the middle, between blogs & clogs, as I've always felt that having two blue buttons side by side ruins the aesthetic balance. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The way I want to see it obviously. Fortunately, almost everyone else who cared to comment either agrees with me or doesn't care, but feel free to set up a vote and send an intercom message and whatever you want to do. -- Nx / talk 18:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll be voting goat on that one. sterile^talk 18:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we not brand this "the way ADK wants it", that might be true but not entirely precise. It's the way I suggested and several people agreed on. As for the aesthetic balance, it's a good point and one I had never considered before. ^moral 18:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, great. NX, who has already voiced an opinion that he/she/it/Ken-unspecific gender wants CP to die has swooped in and locked it to the changed format(!) There's transparency for us all. Let us all be reminded, Armondikov is the one edit warring here as he changed the standard without any discussion on the fucking talk page for the template itself. Apparently all you have to do now to get a change through is to kick off an edit war and find a nice sympathetic mod to back you up. Well done idiots, you've '"hastened the death of CP" by acting like its fucking denizens.

Let me put it in very large letters for you all:

Changes to templates should always be discussed on template talk pages!

No-one did.

No-one even thought to add a note with the link here at the beginning of the discussion so the people that don't want to deal with the random tripe in the SB could rightly point out that template changes should be discussed on the template talk page.

Until whatever discussion is had (again if necessary) here, any change is the arbitrary act of a few users who now have a mod to back up their preferred version with a cast iron block.

Talk pages exist for every article and template so that changes can be discussed there. Users aren't required to watch every fucking page in the project in order to be aware of potential changes to pages they've already got on their watchlist. Or shall we set the precedence that massive changes can be effected so long as we discuss it somewhere? Yeah, I'm sure that won't be used to cause fucking drama.

This all kicked off because none of you wanted to actually discuss the changes you wanted to make so you hid it amongst the general chitchat at SB, no note here, not even a hands-up on any of the WIGO talk pages. Enjoy the fruits of your whisper gallery. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is RationalWiki. 95% of the time, nobody cares about these kinds of changes. It's to ADK's credit that he actually took the time to discuss a change to the damn button order before making it.

"Apparently all you have to do now to get a change through is to kick off an edit war and find a nice sympathetic mod to back you up." Actually you normally need a few minions too. Blue (pester) 03:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Second moderator, still locked to the new version without any consensus reached on this page. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's Nx being Nx. There's no point arguing with him; he'll simply ignore you or make a smart-ass comment instead of trying to moderate a situation with any sort of plan to making things less tense as opposed to more. We have to accept it now, 'cause it's not going to change. Kinda like when it was Human's wiki. But at least it was fun then. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new Hungarian overlords. 85.210.11.35 (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is RW, where only the chosen few get a vote. 85.210.8.114 (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you on about? I didn't lock the page. Nx did. Blue (pester) 03:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You, Nx, AD - you're all pretty much interchangeable as agents of the thought police. 85.210.11.35 (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Another situation which goes to prove Nx is not fit to be a moderator. Ace^ace 03:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Still looks like a load of pointless name-calling & finger-pointing. OK, so there wasn't a discussion on the talk page before the changes. Now that there is a discussion here, why not make it about the pros & cons of the changes rather than just who is pissed off with who? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 04:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Change the buttons to this

1. Тy^talk 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Aye. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Blue (pester) 04:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
4. ^talk 06:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
5. - π 06:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
6. -- Nx / talk 07:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
8. --PsyGremlinTala! 09:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
9. ^bomination 18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Bad Faith (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Dumpling (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep them the way they were

212.139.230.154 (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

85.210.11.197 (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

212.139.234.229 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

212.139.236.251 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

212.139.237.125 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

212.139.238.61 (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Goat

1. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
2. sterile^talk 10:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Could care less about the order. sterile^talk 10:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Really just doesn't matter. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 11:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Scream!! (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
5. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Do we seriously have to wait a week now? -- Nx / talk 07:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

New voting rules says yes. - π 07:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, that is only for changes to the standards or policies. Blue (pester) 07:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So, how long will this pointless poll last? -- Nx / talk 07:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Chill, it's not a big deal. Someone raises a hissy fit like above, we vote and let tempers cool. It works in a lot of ways.--^talk 07:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, are we going to vote on this too? -- Nx / talk 10:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jebsus Christ, Nx, if people want to vote, esp. if something's controversial, let them vote. Take a wiki-break and chill out. sterile^talk 11:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Just because others are going into hysterics is no reason to lose perspective.--^talk 11:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nx is just butthurt because by organizing a vote on the matter, Ty did a much better job of moderating the situation than he did. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on the vote above

The IP votes were stricken as socks of SuspectedReplicant. Blue (pester) 22:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that a clear consensus is emerging

Give it another 36 hours so that the people who don't edit on the weekend can chime in, and if it still looks like folks are this clearly in favour, switch 'em up. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So still...

...not a single piece of discussion about this on the relevant page. No arguments as to why one way is better, no alternatives for people to vote on, nothing.

I do love the fucking precedent that's being set here by Nx after his abuse of his moderator powers to silence dissension. What we've done here to to say that any fast moving majority with the franchise can quickly alter stuff any way they want and use an unfit moderator to enforce that decision. I honestly can't wait for the clusterfuck of drama that ensues when the Goon learn they can use this method to turn the project into their latest internet chew toy, three hundred of them gain the franchise and at least we won't have to put up with Nx any more. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A cluocracy doesn't work in a website without a hierarchy. And who are the Goon? Blue (pester) 22:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Goons are the (self-chosen) name of the forum denizens of Something Awful. They're like Anonymous but more organised. Generally they drop a few thousand accounts into various FtP internet games every so often to reap the whining. As they're all individual people behind each account there can be no banning for multi-abuse or bot use. Let's hope they never think it's a good idea to do the same to an informative project. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wtf, you just buy an account this week? Nobody from SA is such an asshole about being a goon (unless they are an asshole) and "calling out the goons" is a ridiculous goddamn thing people think they can do after their first week lurking in GBS.--^talk 22:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Why don't you see if you can swing the Goat voters around to your much better idea instead of complaining? - π 22:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point that a reason should be at least given on this fucking page before any vote is called. There has been no discussion about this, only the manoeuvring of voting blocks. Is that really what you want the business of this project to be? Who can bring the most supposed individuals with franchise to bear without any salient debate? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about this And what do you think this is? I'm terribly sorry that we didn't follow your imaginary rule of having the discussion on the template's talk page (btw, only people who bother to wade into the main page's source know where the template is even located, the first complaint about this came at the saloon bar, and though talk:main page is technically probably the most appropriate place to discuss this, the saloon bar is better because more people will notice it there), but it's flat out false that this was not discussed. And, make sure you sit down because this might come as a shock, there was even a reason for the change. Unbelievable, I know.

Who can bring the most supposed individuals with franchise to bear without any salient debate? For better or worse, that's how RationalWiki works. -- Nx / talk 22:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is increasingly clear that your shrieking fit was absolutely necessary, given the huge number of editors who oppose the change. The vote above, fraught with argument and controversy, is proof that you were not just wildly overreacting and wasting everyone's time. Surely.--^talk 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good point, I will make a list of all the arguments for and against the proposal. - π 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just reading RationalWiki:History and it basically says that RW exists purely because of CP. Looking through what discussion there is about this template it seems that some people would like to deemphasize CP on RW, as if CPs presence is somehow bolstered by visitors finding it through this site. Perhaps the reasoning is that RW members clicking on the WIGO links is giving CP too many hits. I'm really not sure, the discussion is disjointed in the extreme, but it seems to me if you want to go that route the best thing would be to close this shit site and go get some better hobbies. Salt the earth from whence it came and that way you can be sure of never generating any interest in CP at all. M.B.E (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, RW was begun because of CP, but we don't "exist purely because of CP." Blue (pester) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(AD beat me to it, but whatever.) I'd like to counter Iscariot's shrill paranoia over the entirely hypothetical idea of SomethingAwful hitting this site: you apparently haven't been there since 2007. Goons these days remain instinctively critical of any non-SomethingAwful site, but by and large, they don't attack sites that they feel don't deserve it. SomethingAwful flushed Anonymous, and its /b/tard culture, from their site several years ago, because they don't like fucktards.

And, also: "What if three hundred trolls show up!" is no way to run a site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for change

• Some people like the new ordering and want to destroy Conservapedia-related content.
• WIGO:CP is one of the least updated WIGO pages. World has almost accumulated more entries in Novemeber alone (and it's only the 6/7th) than CP did in the whole of October.

Reasons against change

• Some people like the old ordering but it's not their circlejerk anymore.

Now that a consensus has emerged re: the buttons at the Saloon Bar...

...how would people feel about putting all the WIGOs on the sidebar so that we can get to them from wherever we are? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 20:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Like this?

* WIGO...
** RationalWiki:What is going on in the world?|in the world?
** RationalWiki:What is going on in the blogosphere?|in the blogosphere?
** RationalWiki:What is going on in the clogosphere?|in the clogosphere?
** Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?|at CP?

By the way, the relevant MW page is MediaWiki:Sidebar. So we better move this discussion there or Iscariot will throw a fit. Blue (pester) 20:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reply here, and you can move it if you move it - if we do make "nav bars on all pages" we really should look at a different and smaller design. I say that, cause with our side bars, and important messages at the top of actual real articles, the nav buttons would end up adding clutter. Can we put it on the left side bar, where "navigation"< "community" etc., are?GodotGet over it!. 21:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the source of MediaWiki:Sidebar. That's exactly what I proposed. I don't think I or Bb want to put the actual buttons on every page... Blue (pester) 21:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What Blue said. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think separate links to each WIGO on the sidebar would be overkill. What would be better is if a decent WIGO Portal page can be set up, which would include links to each of the WIGO pages, & possible some transcluded content if there's a workable way of doing it, then just adding this central WIGO page as a sidebar link. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Weaseloid. I just don't think it's necessary. They are pretty prominent on Main as it is. sterile^talk 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we put them on RC? That's my bookmark/entry point. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

For those who edit, that makes lots of sense, as that's where we go most of the time. I don't think I even know what the home page looks like anymore.--GodotGet over it!. 00:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much?

What is going on?

World	Blogs	Clogs	CP	The Bar	Error creating thumbnail: File missing
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

^bomination 16:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hell yes it's too much. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Too much. --★uːʤɱ sinner 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A little too hung over to do this shit...

What is going on?

World	Blogs	Clogs	CP	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

I think you get the idea... Occasionaluse (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously wanting to add them, just crossed my mind and decided to play. :P ^bomination 17:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(╯°□°）╯︵ Occasionaluse (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There are relevant square logos that would be far less intrusive. ^pathetic 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am wary about linking to twitter, does the RW twitter represent RW as a whole or a single user? The facebook page is collaborative but not twitter. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 18:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is ran by a single volunteer, but it's effectively sanctioned by RW. ^gnostic 18:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case I'd be opposed to promoting the twitter account as "RW's Twitter". Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Trent set it up and asked for someone to run it. You couldn't run a Twitter account the same way as RW, yet it's a useful tool for professional contacts and promotion. ^gnostic 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that makes more sense. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

looking back on all the drama this caused

why didn't we just put it into a neutral alphabetical order? Sure WIGO:CP would still be close to the front but that would be because of andy's choice of name, not old versus new focus RW bias. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I favour them being in a randomly assigned order. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But drama is the entire point of the site! ^pathetic 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that why the name is Robespierre Wiki?GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Saloon bar

The Saloon bar isn't a WIGO, and is linked on the left of every page. Do we really need it in this? Perhaps we could replace it with a link to WIGO ASK, citizendium etc. Sophie^{because liberals} 16:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

But WIGO:ASK and WIGO:CZ are pretty dead, or dead. Saloon bar does have a lot of "discussions" about current events. Not a traditional WIGO but a high traffic, high use, and often interesting page. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying the bar is good, but why link to it three times from the main page? Sophie^{because liberals} 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WIGO:CZ doesn't strike me as too dead really, and with the money about out for CZ, might be good to watch the death rattle. --Revolverman (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

But then we'd be in the position of a dead website having front billing. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh, good point. --Revolverman (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-related WIGOs

Citizendium again

Shouldn't the WIGO on Citizendium be in the list? It's a bit less active, but even still, it's hardly inactive. 109.154.210.29 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Look, matey, I know a dead parrot WIGO when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now." Scream!! (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hence why it's more active than CP? 81.156.64.235 (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia

To be fair, WIGO:CP updates less frequently than ever and probably only gets the views attention because it'll be in peoples' bookmarks directly. I'm against anything other than World, Talk, Poop and Beer being on this. ^sshole 16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Me too. (World, Blog & Crap) Scream!! (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Ty^JFBAA 17:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice way of trying to sneak this through yet again. WIGO:CP is still one of the most popular parts of the site and making unwarranted assumptions about how people access it is downright dishonest. When CP finally dies it can come off this template but not before. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Much as I wish this place would get over CP, it is still a major source of our traffic and so WIGO CP should stay on that basis. Sophie^Wilder 18:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There were 3-4 entries over an entire month at one point. You cannot say that this is "active" in contrast to the others. ^narchist 13:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The few people interested in WIGO Citizendium know where to find it. New users do not come here for the WIGO:CZ, like they might for WIGO:CP. If they do, they came here by link, directly to their target. --"Shut up, Brx." 18:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm more for fewer than for more. Sadly, CP still brings in editors, so I would still advocate for it to stay, although wouldn't cry if it left. sterile^talk 01:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it: so much as suggesting a change to this template generates a fairly significant discussion without fail, yet nobody has so much as dropped by to complain about my complete redesign of the WIGO page from the other day. I feel left out. Peter ^mqzp 06:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your changes to the WIGO page were the worst thing to happen on the internet since the first edition of Time Cube. You should be so ashamed of your work that you leave this website and never return. --Damo^Hi 06:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear somebody isn't sleeping on the job. Peter ^mqzp 07:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yours was a redesign that didn't look like it had been done by the boss' nephew. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing most people access the WIGOs from Main. I don't remember ever looking at the WIGO page. sterile^talk 11:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I used to do, until I added a link to the WIGO page to the sidebar ([1]). Somebody suggested in a section above that we could do that for everyone if we had a decent portal there, so my change was to see if I could make one. Peter ^mqzp 19:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiworld

Sometimes, we should merge WIGO:Conservapedia, WIGO:Ask, WIGO:Citizendium into WIGO:wikiworld, where we can talk not only about these wikis (though mainly - I'm afraid :-) - about Conservapedia), but also about Sanger's new project, the wikimedia foundation and famous wikiwars... --larron (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be good, but maybe we should trial it as a separate WIGO from CP, covering all other wikis, and merging CP into it later if it seems a success. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Weaseloid there. At the moment, CP would dominate the page and the others would get lost in the mix. It's a good idea for all-bar-CP though. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea too. is there a way of spotting wikidrama while it's fresh? Apart from tabbing recent changes on every relevant wiki? Sophie^Wilder 19:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Camping the coop-equivalent? Peter ^mqzp 20:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, since WIGO:ASK is officially dead (and was never really alive to begin with), this "trial" would seem to just be a rebranding of WIGO:CZ (which is, admittedly, slightly active). Maybe we should cover additional wikis? None really come to mind as notable, though. Blue (is useful) 23:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Larron suggested the wikimedia foundation, which is more than "notable." It may be hard to keep up with, however. Peter ^mqzp 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What Blue said. Ty^JFBAA 23:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, we could theoretically do the WMF and Wikipedia and its other projects, but they're just so huge that it might be a fool's errand. Blue (pester) 23:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There must be some foundation project that has pseudoscience problems akin to CZ out there though. No need to take on the whole beast. Peter ^mqzp 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"So huge that it might be a fool's errand" <-- How does this comment not also apply to the blogosphere or, say, "the world", both of which are WIGOed satisfactorily. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The CZ WIGO has actually become the official discussion board for Citizendium, because saying anything negative on CZ is cause for banning. 81.156.64.235 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

FB + Twitt?

Pardon? Scream!! (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The grauniad seems to lap up twitter storms. FB is problematic because posts, comments and even pages can just vanish. Sophie^Wilder 19:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Scream was talking about adding the twitter and fb links to the template ([2]). A fb WIGO could be interesting, however, but we'd have to use screenshots liberally. Peter ^mqzp 19:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We voted on this

Or, I mean, see Talk:Main_Page#Time_to_remove_CP_from_the_mainpage_.28etc..29_headers

OK

I give up. How do you change the globe? ^talk 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to be a tech, and then you go here: [3]. Search the page (ctrl+f) for "wigonav-button." I think.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, making a picture+internal link was just too simple for Nx--"Shut up, Brx." 01:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)