Talk:The Infosphere (website)

"It started in January 30th, 2006, as a project off PEEL by 'Buddy13'. " -- If this means what I think it means, it's incorrect. By checking the join date on PEEL, one can see that I joined PEEL five days after starting the Infosphere. Also, it was apparently my birthday. But anyway. If I get some time, I'll work on this article a little bit later. I must admit, it is nice to finally be mentioned in an article. My dreams of being an article on Wikipedia will someday be fulfilled! --Buddy 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC) [edit]: BTW, the infinite recursion in the image pleases me to no end. --Buddy 05:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that infinite recursion was my doing. yay!--My leg feels funny! 05:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I do not recall incorrectly, Buddy, I think you have the ability to edit articles. :O!  Perhaps ye can shed some light on this wiki!? --SvipTalk 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant, I just don't have time to get into it right now. Probably later tonight. I have noticed that I'm posting more suggestions and recommendations than actually editing things my-damn-self. Which I should. I guess I just got so used to it while I didn't have internet. --Buddy 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge?
Why would we consider ever merging? Wikia has lots of ads and let's not forget that normally wikis from wikia have very bad quality. Can you believe they asked.Sir Mr. Dr. Professor FutureFan 02:00, 13 May 2010 (CEST)
 * Well, I suppose it was more about us being asked about the proposal. We did weigh the options.  I mean, combining strengths could have some advantage, and we might feel people would be less confused with only one Futurama wiki.
 * But... after considering it, we decided that it wasn't for us. And you can also flip one of those arguments and say; with two wikis, people have a chance to decide on which they will choose. --Sviptalk 10:49, 13 May 2010 (CEST)

Infobox image
I think that the infobox image should be File:The Infosphere Logo.png. Any opinions? Sanfazer (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2011 (CET)
 * I think it should, but the logo looks very fuzzy when it's enhanced to 225px. If we could get a higher quality version of the image, that's be great. -- DeepSpaceHomer (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2011 (CET)
 * You're right. Though we could just enhance it to, for example, 100 while we don't have one. Sanfazer (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2011 (CET)
 * I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, however I do think there should be a logo history on the article, even though there's only been two (unless a previous one only lasted a couple of months) Can't actually see the old one on the site anywhere, but these guys have it. - Quolnok (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2011 (CET)