SPOON, FoRKS and related cutlery

I'm sure it would.

I'm going to preemptively lock both articles. Part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any way for people looking at those articles to know what's being discussed about them. I'll fix that as well.

Edit: done. Also, the cutlery index is The Archive of Bellicose Lexicon Entities. We should reference it in the crowner... also done.

edited 28th Mar '12 6:49:05 AM by Fighteer

Ummm, for consistency's sake, and since this concerns all cutlery pages, shouldn't we do the same for all of them? CHOPSTICKS, PEPPER, PLATTER, SHAKER, WHISK and KNIVES come to mind.

Yeah, I was going to get to that... sigh.

Edit: That's all of them. I repaired the indexing on TABLE too.

edited 28th Mar '12 7:21:49 AM by Fighteer

I made TABLE into an index – that's what the page type was set to, and it seemed logical.

Edit: Strike that. I didn't look at the page history. Reverting.

What do you mean by "repaired? It worked fine when I did it, or is it not meant to be an index?

edited 28th Mar '12 7:26:53 AM by Telcontar

The problem wasn't the [index] tags, it was that it was using redirects instead of direct links. Indexing redirects doesn't work. The only reason you need [index] tags is if there are bulleted parts of the article that are not supposed to be part of the index, like with supertropes that also have examples.

Edit: Aw crap, there seems to be a ghost index from Main.The Archive Of Bellicose Lexicon Entities. I think I can repair it myself.

Edit 2: Got it.

Edit 3: Looks like +20 (30:10) for sticking everything in TABLE and cutting the specific pages, while preserving the member lists, as of this moment.

edited 28th Mar '12 7:45:11 AM by Fighteer

Sorry for overworking you, Fighteer. >.>

Why cutting the specific pages, rather than redirecting them? Or is that to prevent them from becoming "battle cries"?

Redirecting, cutting... the difference is somewhat semantic in this case. Clearly they'd be left as redirects.

Also, it's no problem; that sort of work is my "job". No work was made for me that did not already exist to be done.

I'm rather on the side of FORKS, and here's my opinion.

Clean the pages of vitriol when there's a need, but don't cut them. Such a decision would cause even more bad blood.

The membership lists were where all the bile came from. Best to not have them.

The point is to remove the comments that people leave after their names and just have a list of members. That is [implied in] the leading crowner option, currently.

edited 28th Mar '12 8:00:05 AM by Fighteer

I don't think there would be a problem if we specified that only names are allowed with a NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THANK YOU warning.

Okay, maybe I should edit the leading option to reflect ? Or would that be considered unfair?

edited 28th Mar '12 8:01:29 AM by lu127

Commented out, that is. No need to scream to people.

Also, the bile was in the comments, not the names themselves.

Edited that option to make it explicit that no commentary would be allowed.

O_O

What in the unholy hell is going on in the FORKS discussion? Even after Fighteer's warning a year ago?

I hit it again. That'll disappear if the crowner action passes, anyway.

Seriously, "this is a page on Darth Wiki, therefore it is made specifically for complaining" and "all the mods are on the SPOON side"? This takes it a bit too far, methinks.

edited 28th Mar '12 8:27:00 AM by lu127

That sort of vicious bile-slinging is precisely what gets Darth Wiki a reputation for being a sewage pit and keeps getting stuff on there cut and locked.

True and that makes me sad. Darth Wiki can be fun when it's not used as a dumping ground for bitching.

Dear mods, one question:

Why is the option "allow comments, except vitriolic ones" not OK?

Because it would need constant control. Anyway, where was it said that it's unacceptable?

I don't see "no comments" anywhere except on the lead option, whic might be a problem. These pages do document a process the Wiki has been going through, the problem is all the "urk" in the commentary proper. When we find these things about a work we usually clean, why not here?

Yup. On the Fo RKS page itself, at first there were sparse, short comments. Later people began putting comments that were slightly longer and less Just for Fun. Then it developed into the state it is now.

edited 28th Mar '12 9:21:57 AM by Telcontar

We are not here to police people's opinions. If they have failed to keep it civil en masse, then we have to take action.

edited 28th Mar '12 9:26:12 AM by lu127