User talk:Solar Dragon/Archive 11
 |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, |
Contents |
|
Talk page rules:
For other general user talk page rules, see our policy. |
Logo
Hi, Solar. I was just thinking about the wiki logo and how good it is compared to some. However, it really does need "Wikisimpsons" to appear on the logo somewhere. I would do it myself, but I don't know if I have the right software and skill to do it. Maybe it could be written using the simpsons font, similar to whats been done with the "wikia" logo? And then underneath, maybe, "The Simpsons Wiki" or something like that? Seeing as this wiki seems to be getting more popular and "going up in the world", as it is, I think adding this would help. What do you think? Prehaps somebody else could make the change if you don't have the time etc? Effluvium 20:25, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- The best person to ask would be Smiley12 as he made the spotlight image and is best at that sort of stuff. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 20:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Will ask him now. Thanks, Solar! Effluvium 20:28, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
New Wiki Skin
Hi, Solar. Have you had a chance to check out the new beta on the Glee, Twilight, Red Dead Redemption, Muppet, and Healthy Living Wikis? What do you think? I saw you signed the petition to stop Wikia going ahead with it - I singed it too. Im not fussed on it, to be honest. Do you think Wikia will listen to us editors, or will they go ahead with it regardless. I'd like to see how Wikisimpsons would look with the new skin, shame it isn't being used in the beta testing... Effluvium 20:54, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I have been a beta tester and made my views very clear. When they make the switch, I will ask the community whether we want to move to a new Wiki client, possibly ShoutWiki. If not, I just switch to Monobook. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 20:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. We'll see then.. Effluvium 21:00, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I just hate this new look so much. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 21:01, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, same. It really is quite awful. I really do hope they don't go through with it... Effluvium 21:03, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- They will do. People hated Monaco and they went ahead with it. The difference is, they are removing Monaco too! ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 21:04, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I hate it too, but we don't know whether it will look horrible here or not. Beta testing wikis like Glee look very good. I'm sure that by customizing the entire skin and background it would look good. However, there's nothing we can do with the logo, it will be just the word "Wikisimpsons" (what's the matter with Wikia?), though we could customize it with Simpson font and a little Homer's head on top. — TheHomer (Talk • Contributions) 22:53, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, well. We'll just have to sit tight and see what they decide to do. Effluvium 06:44, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on! This new skin is going to mess up all the "Tab systems" we have running. What are we going to do? Effluvium 06:49, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Move away from Wikia? Tell everyone to make an account and change to Monobook to see the wiki as it should be before Wikia screwed up? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:16, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Thats quite a BIG move to make though. And only the dedicated editors will come. There will be no spotlights to attract users and Wikia has a far larger market share of these "Wiki" projects. Im really not sure. Can't believe Wikia are messing up the wikis that users have spent so long to work on. It really annoys me! Effluvium 13:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- And me. Maybe we should boycott Wikia or something when the change happens? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:40, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Im sure other wikis will be outraged by this change, especially the big ones like Wookieepedia, Lostpedia and the Doctor Who Wiki etc. I'd like to see them move to a different wiki provider and see the looks on Wikia's face. Haha! Although, Im not sure if I'd be happy with Wikisimpsons moving somewhere else. Im home here and even if they do mess me around with all this "change", I'll probably just settle back in with the new skin...I dunno. I just hope wikia dont go through with it. With all the negative feedback and comments they're getting, surely they'll change their mind! Effluvium 13:44, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- They're ignoring the negative feedback, no matter how much they say they aren't. I haven't seen any of the staff respond to the negative feedback. Maybe they know it is bad too? I actually wonder how many of the staff actually like it? But, there is the option to change to Monobook always. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:46, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was thinking how many Staff users actually liked the look. Surely a few don't?! Well, I gave a ">:(" face on the feedback, and I know alot of have, so maybe, just maybe, they'll listen this time! Hang on, whats monobook? Sorry, I've seen you mention it several times (and other users) and I have no idea what it is! Effluvium 13:49, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- It is the official name for Wikipedia's old skin, the skin Uncyclopedia uses. It is also used on ShoutWiki and many other users prefer it to Monaco. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:53, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. Yes, I know now. Yeah, that could work. Well, anything is better than this Oasis rubbish! Effluvium 13:56, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- It is the official name for Wikipedia's old skin, the skin Uncyclopedia uses. It is also used on ShoutWiki and many other users prefer it to Monaco. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:53, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was thinking how many Staff users actually liked the look. Surely a few don't?! Well, I gave a ">:(" face on the feedback, and I know alot of have, so maybe, just maybe, they'll listen this time! Hang on, whats monobook? Sorry, I've seen you mention it several times (and other users) and I have no idea what it is! Effluvium 13:49, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- They're ignoring the negative feedback, no matter how much they say they aren't. I haven't seen any of the staff respond to the negative feedback. Maybe they know it is bad too? I actually wonder how many of the staff actually like it? But, there is the option to change to Monobook always. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:46, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Im sure other wikis will be outraged by this change, especially the big ones like Wookieepedia, Lostpedia and the Doctor Who Wiki etc. I'd like to see them move to a different wiki provider and see the looks on Wikia's face. Haha! Although, Im not sure if I'd be happy with Wikisimpsons moving somewhere else. Im home here and even if they do mess me around with all this "change", I'll probably just settle back in with the new skin...I dunno. I just hope wikia dont go through with it. With all the negative feedback and comments they're getting, surely they'll change their mind! Effluvium 13:44, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- And me. Maybe we should boycott Wikia or something when the change happens? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:40, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Thats quite a BIG move to make though. And only the dedicated editors will come. There will be no spotlights to attract users and Wikia has a far larger market share of these "Wiki" projects. Im really not sure. Can't believe Wikia are messing up the wikis that users have spent so long to work on. It really annoys me! Effluvium 13:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Move away from Wikia? Tell everyone to make an account and change to Monobook to see the wiki as it should be before Wikia screwed up? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:16, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on! This new skin is going to mess up all the "Tab systems" we have running. What are we going to do? Effluvium 06:49, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, well. We'll just have to sit tight and see what they decide to do. Effluvium 06:44, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I hate it too, but we don't know whether it will look horrible here or not. Beta testing wikis like Glee look very good. I'm sure that by customizing the entire skin and background it would look good. However, there's nothing we can do with the logo, it will be just the word "Wikisimpsons" (what's the matter with Wikia?), though we could customize it with Simpson font and a little Homer's head on top. — TheHomer (Talk • Contributions) 22:53, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- They will do. People hated Monaco and they went ahead with it. The difference is, they are removing Monaco too! ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 21:04, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, same. It really is quite awful. I really do hope they don't go through with it... Effluvium 21:03, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I just hate this new look so much. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 21:01, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. We'll see then.. Effluvium 21:00, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Bart103
Hi Solar, new user Bart103 has been making some changes on character categories which don't seem quite right to me. I reverted some of the changes and left him a note (not a warning) on his talk page, suggesting that he ask someone like yourself about the character categories before making any further category changes. He does not seem to be acting out of malice, which is why I left a note instead of a warning. He may show up on your talk page, another admin's, or even mine with some questions, so I figured I'd leave you a heads-up. Happy Friday! -- Mythigator 13:38, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for telling me. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 17:31, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
- On further consideration, would you mind dropping him a line about using redirects? I've already told him a couple of times that using redirects is just fine (to type just [[Homer]] instead of [[Homer Simpson|Homer]], for example) but he seems to be insisting on doing it the long way around, making a bunch of unnecessary edits. I first dropped him a line about it on his talk page, then he replied on mine, and I added some more on his. He said he doesn't like redirects (which I sort of understand ... I've seen wikis that steered away from using them), but since our style is that they're perfectly acceptable, and in fact encouraged, then IMO he should respect the style (and avoid going to a bunch of unnecessary trouble). -- Mythigator 19:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
