Talk:Main Page

From RationalWikiWiki

Talkpage archives

[edit] Featured articles

I'm just off out now, but here's a suggestion: how about we work on a few more articles to bring them up to featured status. I'm bored with constantly having the same people who left years ago. Rrose Selavy 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. MNpunkboy 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure that it wasn't MarcusCicero. He would be so proud. --Earthland 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll feature his arse on my size ten work boots if that helps. Rrose Selavy 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK there's some weird way that articles transclude to the main page, but i can't work out what's happening. in the meantime, I nominate the following for featured status (please support/oppose with reasons):

[edit] Anti-religion bias

[edit] Arthropleura

[edit] RationalWiki's Community Standards

[edit] Social dynamics

[edit] P-Foster

[edit] Six months later

Nobody cares, so I'm going to do this anyway. Rrose Selavy 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, now the random featured article won't randomise. Rrose Selavy 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] What is this website's purpose?

(MC)

I use this site to refer to Historical RW stuff that's hard to find there. For me it's a history of RW rather than an attack site. Others may have their own opinion. Rrose Selavy 10:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we are both correct. The point of this site, according to the main page, is to "Identify groupthink, indentify power abuse, and observe the evolution of RationalWiki." Therefore, allowing the critics to come here and critique RationalWiki is part of our job, so long as it fits into identifying groupthink and/or power abuse. Slime attacks, however, do not fit to within that. As far as the history of the site goes, that fits well under "observing the evolution of RationalWiki." So, Rrose, we both appear to be right. MNpunkboy 08:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that RWW has no inherent right to reside on the RW server. It is offered as a courtesy, and I have never exerted or demanded editorial control in return for it. However, this is were to turn into a personal attack site against individuals, in a mean spirited way, RWW would have to find another home. Criticism is fine, and won't be met with me pulling the plug, but if MC comes here and is allowed to start calling people names on their articles I will issue an eviction notice. Tmtoulouse 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Trent is right. He is under no obligation to host it, and I certainly don't think he should if it turns vile. If RWW wants to be a meta-site that essentially records and keeps track of the fast-paced activity of the main site, then I'd certainly welcome it as something incredibly useful. As for criticism, I'd also welcome it - but then again I'm someone who's happy to learn and change, not everyone will be appreciative, especially if it's just personal attacks. Armondikov 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As I think I said above, this site's goal is to keep a historical record of RationalWiki while, at the same time, critique RationalWiki in a constructive manner. Using it as a slime attack site is, however, not within its mission. MNpunkboy 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Much as I agree with the above there is a side aspect. By giving the likes of Marcus, CUR and Fall Down some play space it has kept them away from RW which is a "good thing". I know this is a by product and neither is nor should be the primary purpose of this site but it is an aspect. InnocentBystander 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with you there, innocentbystander. I think my original point was that I'd much rather they troll RationalWiki from this site than be over at RationalWiki trying to cause HCM all over the place. At least here, they can largely be ignored, and aren't really disrupting people who are actually trying to work on something important. I do not think MarcusCicero should have free reign over here, but when he is here, at least, he is much easier to ignore and/or get rid of. MNpunkboy 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] I'm surprised

I've been rather out of the loop for a while now and I just thought I'd have a look at the old place. I'm pleasantly surprised. There is actual life in the site. If I had been keeping up with RW I would start to contribute again. Alas...--False Flag 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What's more surprising is that it's all because a certain somebody showed up, and everyone kept their cool and decided to do other things that didn't involve said person. Make sense? MNpunkboy 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Policies box

The policies box in the lower right shouldn't be nested withing the featured article box, it looks cluttered and confusing. E.g. Kels came up as featured article for me and the policies box looks like it belongs into the "Personality profile" section of that article. -- Nx / talk 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conficker's challenge

I hereby challenge this place to clear all trolling and other nonsense completely out of recent changes over the next few days. I will be gone, unfortunately, but let's see if you all can do it. Conficker 02:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept your challenge sir/madam! MNpunkboy 02:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HotCat extension

Any way one of the techies involved in this site could install the HotCat extension so that I don't need to do categories old skool? MNpunkboy 02:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

HotCat isn't an extension in itself, but a JS script, so it should be importable.

15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it works. Because we don't have the Gadgets extension, it needs to be done old-school, by editing your monobook.js. I have taken the liberty of doing this for you.

16:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks PH. MNpunkboy 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Domain name expiring

RationalWikiWiki's domain name will expire July 14th, as I have no money to continue paying for it.

It's just as well. I effectively killed this site when I commandeered it for my own purposes back in autumn of '08. (I deeply regret doing so—this site could've actually been a good thing. But now we'll never know.) It's been nothing more than a shambling zombie since then, kept alive out of hubris. It really ought to die. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 05:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis a shame, and just before (as my computer is broken) I was gonna spice things up here. Oh well. MNpunkboy 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you. I think the site should continue, though. I'm not sure, but it should be possible to relocate it into RW's domain, but the sheer volume of dead links could kill whatever was left.

17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How much does it cost to maintain the domain name, anyways? I agree with the phantom vaccuum cleaner that this place should be kept around in some form. Hell, we could even try to move it to a Wikifarm or something as a severe alternative. MNpunkboy 17:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, let it die. Good riddance. 193.200.150.152 19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I feel it ought to die. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only $15, but what little money I have I'm saving up for something else. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 20:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: Ownership of the domain name is being/has been transferred to Trent. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 04:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And here (now that I'm at a computer again) I could've paid that $15. Oh well, probably better Trent have it anyways. I'll just donate that $15 to him. MNpunkboy 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] RWW readers, please check in

For those who read RWW (what, like 10 of you maybe?), I am looking for ideas as to who people think needs an article here. Granted, we have the outdated "wanted pages," but I am sure that folks can come up with more than that for me to write about. This isn't a popularity contest, I'm just at a writer's block point, and need some ideas. Conficker 05:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] RWW domains

Users of RWW should be aware that I am including the transfer of ownership of the rww domain to the foundation as well. 68.35.148.225 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A question: when the time comes that I am able to afford it again (or if someone else wishes to do so), will I/they be able to "buy" it back from the Foundation? Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially since I am an interested buyer in the future. MNpunkboy 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no intrinsic reason that would prevent this, and I don't see a reason the trustees wouldn't agree to such an arrangement. But there is also not really much hurry either. 68.35.148.225 04:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no hurry. Just curiosity as something that could happen in the future. Thanks for the feedback. MNpunkboy 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

I want to write something that I "own" - an essay really. I don't think that we've ever allowed this before, but would anyone have any objections? --False Flag 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, go ahead! I'm all for it. --Admin 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All low-use Wikis considered, I have no objections. Go ahead! Punky McPunkersen 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume there's no essayspace, so it would have to stay in the mainspace. Liveware Problem 03:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can always stick "Essay:" in the title, and that's good enough for the odd essay.

15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)