Infosphere:Conference Table/Old format

The Conference Table is for discussion of the Infosphere, and proposals for new ideas. For information about upcoming changes to the Infosphere, see Current events. __NEWSECTIONLINK__ Click here to start a new discussion.

If you feel a discussion needs to be archived, tag it with
 *   (see template for more information)

Got nothing to do? You can check out our To Do list to see if there is anything that need being done.

Background Jokes
I was thinking, both the simpsons and Futurama are known for their background jokes. Should there be a list for the background jokes on every episode? I think if we're to be a collective hub of Futurama info it would be important to do so.Anarchy Balsac 18:35, 7 January 2008 (PST)

do you mean a master list or for each episode dr zoidberg 14

Yeah, something like a trivia list except it says "background jokes" as its title.Anarchy Balsac 07:01, 11 January 2008 (PST)

great idea i say yes dr zoidberg 14


 * Would they need time-indices? --Buddy 18:36, 3 February 2008 (PST)
 * Wouldn't hurt, though it would make the task more tedious.Anarchy Balsac 21:21, 15 February 2008 (PST)

You could also make an article containing all the jokes from season 1, one for season 2, one for season 3, one for season 4 and one for the upcoming movies.It would be easier than going through all the episodes and adding a new section. Fryandgarfield
 * Hmm... *searches* reminds me of this group of articles List of computer science references, which aren't linked from anything except each other and are far from complete. - Quolnok 18:26, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
 * I see your point. Maybe we should merge this idea with that one (since most of the computer science references are background jokes anyway) and put it in the sidebar to draw more attention(hence more editing) to it.Anarchy Balsac 12:38, 27 March 2008 (PDT)

Background Jokes: break
Okay, I think we need to start this topic again. As I am watching Futurama now and then (often a lot), I am not paying much attention to the actual plot, but noticing parts of the screen I am supposed to stare at. As a consequence, I have begun noticing a lot of background jokes. Now here is how I think we can do this. Make a huge article (list of background jokes), and get rid of the lists I created when I first joined this place. In addition to that article, we can have noticeable mentions on each episode's page. And then of course a link to the list article. My rule for a background joke to be a background joke: Something that is in the picture but unreferenced by characters and/or unimportant to plot. --SvipTalk 18:53, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
 * Yep there should be an article. Just so long as we know the other, abandoned, ones are disappearing. Bits and pieces of these are already spread through trivia sections and commentary articles, and can be copied over. - Quolnok 06:44, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
 * Maybe in a similar format as list of deleted scenes? Well... almost similar, I was thinking listing the background jokes by appearance in a big table.  And also make a list of alien language appearances (this one deserves its own list in my opinion). --SvipTalk 07:03, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
 * There had been an attempt at an AL sightings section in episode articles... Yeah they should have a page too. Format should definitely sort by season/episode. Perhaps as subsections of episode have "Physics" "Computing" "Literature" "Television" sort of thing, if the background joke is just a fart joke or something, "other" is still an option. - Quolnok 07:15, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
 * The subsections seems a bit overkill if you ask me. Maybe keep it a list for each episode in the list, then have a bold type in brackets, e.g. (Physics).  e.g.:
 * Behind Fry at Mr. Mbutu's apartment reads the text "10 Sweet 20 Home 30 Goto Home" in a frame behind him. This is a reference to the programming language BASIC.  (Computing)
 * For episode I, Roommate, however, I still wondering how we should do this right. A list or a table?  With a table we can apply an image, but not always will an image be necessary.  Hm. :S --SvipTalk 08:22, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
 * I was thinking something similar, but make it a page like the Miscellanies sections. Both the Simpsons and Futurama have loads of freeze frames per episode. We should probably take a vote on the list or table thing.Anarchy Balsac 06:29, 22 July 2008 (CEST)

So I take it opinion is generally in favor, but there just isn't agreement over the exact implementation. I think as long as the criteria for a background joke is established, the rest can be worked out through the editing. I'm all for the criteria Svip proposed, so if we can agree to that, I think we can probably start this and get the ball rolling at least.Anarchy Balsac 05:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Character types
I think we can all safely agree on what is a Primary character, but when it comes to Secondary characters and Tertiary characters, it becomes a bit more debatable. According to the current definitions, it goes like this: But here is where the problem is. Some characters will be labelled as tertiary, even though they have a much larger importance than a secondary character. Example, Steve Castle, the man takes over the company, he is one of the main characters in that episode, and that is an undeniable fact. Since he dies in the same episode he appears in, he was (I edited it myself, because I didn't agree) labelled as a tertiary character. But for instance, since 21st Century girl appears in both episode Love's Labours Lost in Space and The Sting, she is labelled as a secondary character, despite the fact that she have no major importance on the plot of any episode.
 * Primary: Appears in most or all episodes, films and comics.
 * Secondary: Appearing in more than one episode, film or comic.
 * Tertiary: Only appearing in one episode, film or comic.

Instead, I think we should label our types of characters upon plot importance. I am not going to argue for the primary characters, they are set, and are interchangeable. But for secondary and tertiary, it could be like so; I'd especially like to hear Qoulnok's opinion. --SvipTalk 03:43, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
 * Secondary: Characters with some or more plot changing purpose in one or more episodes, films or comics.
 * Tertiary: Characters without any plot changing purpose in one or more episodes, films or comics.
 * Sounds more accurate, but it still leaves some characters questionable. Petunia, for instance is in a number of episodes but doesn't quite meet that definition and I think she should be secondary. - Quolnok 06:50, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
 * I agree. But perhaps add more to the definition for secondary then.  E.g. "Characters with some or more plot changing purpose in one or more episodes, films or comics and/or large reuse of character with interaction with main characters."  And thanks for not pointing out my misspelling of your nick. --SvipTalk 07:12, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

sure why not better than nothing. dr zoidberg 4
 * The only problem is that, unlike the current definition, it's much more subjective. You'd almost have to have a vote for every character to see which they are. But I agree, That Guy is a way more important character than Hattie. If we come up with a more clearly-defined division, I'd be happy to get behind this. --Buddy 11:50, 27 March 2008 (PDT)

Countdowns
On Futurama Madhouse, they have a countdown for the films (when they know the release date), I was wondering if we should have the same for unreleased/unaired films/episodes (maybe in the infobox or the navigation above). And then the next release/air on the Main Page. It can be easy peasy with some javascript and what not. --SvipTalk 17:09, 27 June 2008 (BST)

ive been wondering why we havent been doing that actullay --Dr zoidberg 14 21:11, 27 June 2008 (BST)
 * Time to play with Main Page Proposal again I guess. I really didn't like how the airings template ended up. - Quolnok 05:12, 28 June 2008 (BST)
 * I just threw something together (nonscripted, best to pick a layout first). Not very good. I went with purple (probably needs to change) thinking we could give Leela a background faded image like Fry, Bender and Hypnotoad, but the box'll be to small for that anyway and the box looked better just above Hypnotoad... If we use a box... There's a reason I'm a coder not a graphic designer. - Quolnok 05:57, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I'm thinking we should put the countdowns on the pages containing the release dates themselves. Makes more sense to me.Anarchy Balsac 20:06, 29 July 2008 (CEST)

i was thinking about that to --Dr zoidberg 14 21:27, 29 July 2008 (CEST)

Also, there are two pages that include the countdowns, and both of them are different. i.e., For the R3's BWaBB is due in 10 days on The Main Page Proposal, the Infosphere:Countdown says 11 days. Which is it? Go Bender Kid 21:04, 30 July 2008 (CEST)
 * They are identical. The Countdowns page is included on the Main Page Proposal. --SvipTalk 23:39, 30 July 2008 (CEST)

Did you check them? Cause I'm pretty sure one says 11 and one says 10. Go Bender Kid 02:12, 31 July 2008 (CEST)
 * I did check them, and they said the same on my end. Anything else would have been odd.  Though, now that you mention it, it could have been a cached version appearing.  Maybe I need to reconsider how we are going to deal with cache, or maybe MediaWiki has a way for making some pages exceptions. --SvipTalk 11:19, 31 July 2008 (CEST)
 * I'm glad you thought of that too. I was just about to mention that the caching will prevent IPs from seeing accurate countdowns. - Quolnok 11:41, 31 July 2008 (CEST)
 * I'm pretty sure there's a slight glitch in the countdown (likely due to the rounding), it should say that there's 6 days to go for R4's BwaBB but says 5, unless we're going for 0 days when it comes out the next day. - Quolnok 14:20, 31 July 2008 (CEST)

In line episode/etc. references
As you know, we have decided that a lot of our plot descriptions as well as character, places, etc. descriptions doesn't require sources. However, there are times where we through in an "in line" reference for more "obscure" things. The intend is purely for readers to figure out where the hell the Planet Express Ship was equipped with that, or where it was shown to have which. I am proposing that perhaps we should have a template for making inline references. E.g. 1ACV01, US#01 and The Game. Obviously similar to, which means I am currently focusing on creating a way where we will only have to edit one template when updating the titles, production/comic code and also support "special" episodes. --SvipTalk 17:52, 27 June 2008 (BST)

not a bad idea not bad at all. --Dr zoidberg 14 21:09, 27 June 2008 (BST)
 * There are a small number of those around, such as where we identify Nibbler's age from a DVD menu screen. If there are truely obscure factoids then we need to do it. - Quolnok 05:12, 28 June 2008 (BST)
 * Indeed for Nibbler's age as one, I was thinking of making an additional logo (which is basically a disc) to indicate it being on a DVD but not in an episode. --SvipTalk 11:04, 28 June 2008 (BST)
 * What about if/when someone references the full episodes of Everybody Loves Hypnotoad, or All My Circuits that you get in both BBS and the upcomming Bender's Game? I doubt that they would provide any information that would be neccisary to link to, but you never know... --Fatt Daddy Inc.
 * We already have for the full episode of Everybody Loves Hypnotoad. Regardless, it links to a section in the article about the show;
 * But regardless, it is still to inform people that they appeared in said episodes. --SvipTalk 13:09, 30 June 2008 (BST)
 * But regardless, it is still to inform people that they appeared in said episodes. --SvipTalk 13:09, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Article introductions
Several articles, especially episode articles, commentary, comics and the game articles don't have an introduction to what the article is about. It would be nice if we could have some introductions, even if it would just a bit of a repeat of what was in the infobox, e.g.;
 * Space Pilot 3000 is the first episode of season 1 and was aired 28 March, 1999.

Some articles may have longer introductions, if there is something special to mention, e.g. Futurama Returns was read aloud at Comic-Con. Indeed, that whole article only hints at it was read aloud, not really mentioned anywhere in the article. --SvipTalk 13:43, 5 July 2008 (CEST)
 * Yup, that sounds fair enough. Especially for the longer ones. - Quolnok 13:55, 5 July 2008 (CEST)

Rules on English
Yes, those of us that've been here a while know the rules: Don't edit en-uk to en-us or vice-versa, right? But I recently noticed this ("vapor" to "vapour"), and I wished to let the user know about this rule. However, it seems that this is an "unwritten" rule. I can't find it anywhere. This gives me two problems: I can't help the user out by showing him where this rule is. And I can't really get pissy about it, because how can we expect new users to know this if it isn't written down anywhere? We should definitely add it somewhere, but I'm posting here so we can decide where exactly. In Basics? Or House Rules? Or even Standards? (In fact, much of our Help could probably be overhauled&mdash;what with all the newfangled script contraptions you guys've come up with.) Any ideas? --Buddy 19:40, 15 August 2008 (CEST) I'd been holding off linking to Manual of Style because I thought it was still in progress... then kind of forgot about it. - Quolnok 04:30, 16 August 2008 (CEST)
 * Actually, it appears in Manual of Style. I have talked with Quolnok about including a link to it in the  template.  --SvipTalk 20:00, 15 August 2008 (CEST)
 * Oh, wait, I just included that myself. --SvipTalk 20:01, 15 August 2008 (CEST)
 * Sorry for the trouble, guys. I was just confused and assumed en-uk was used after reading one of your summary messages, Svip. It was about something in the BwaBB transcript, but it was displayed in US and I had it in UK when it was uploaded. If I understand correctly though, both versions are acceptable? -Mini-Me 03:03, 16 August 2008 (CEST)
 * Yep, both are acceptable and switching the page from one to the other is unacceptable if that's the only edit. Of course, we may look the other way sometimes.
 * Okay, I get it now. Still seams a little messy, but I guess it doesn't matter if the one I prefer is kosher.

Expanding our efforts
Futurama is a great show. An awesome show. No one here is going to deny that. But let's face it, it's not the only show. And I know the lot of you have other shows you love and enjoy. Despite the fact that when the Infosphere was conceived, there were other Futurama wikis, it has become the best Futurama wiki on the web. So, I am thinking, maybe we can replicate this for a different show. Since Futurama is labelled as a science-fiction show (though, technically, it is a science-fantasy show), I am think we might best get our hands on a similar genre. Personally, I am also a fan of Firefly. Which, like Futurama, also got cancelled by our favourite network, FOX. Personally, I think we should keep the name "Infosphere," but give it a subname, e.g. "Infosphere: Firefly" or something. Because, if the Infosphere contains all information, then surely it must contain all shows we know about as well.

Remember, this is only a proposal, if no one is willing to be helping at first, then maybe we won't. Anyway, it may not be Firefly, it was purely a suggestion. Cause, let's face it, we are running out of stuff to write about Futurama, if these films really are the last. --SvipTalk 12:17, 16 August 2008 (BST)
 * There'll still be the comics... Never seen Firefly. I'd suggest Stargate or Farscape if there weren't decent wikis for those around (a good wikia wiki is actually possible). Futurama isn't always classed as Sci-Fi though, so there's my reason to suggest Arrested Development a fellow comedy without a good wiki. That said, I'm not sure I have the time for more than one major wiki effort anyway. - Quolnok 13:55, 16 August 2008 (BST)
 * I'm all for, a million percent and beyond, an Arrested Development section. It's comedy, call back plots and a great show (which was also cancelled by Fox), like Futurama. -Mini-Me 23:52, 16 August 2008 (BST)
 * As a fan of Firefly/Serenity, I have all those DVD's as well and can provide plenty of screenshots. However, I think we lucked out with Futurama not having a decent wiki. I think that if we tried any other good show, there's probably already a Wiki available for it. Perhaps if we do some research and find that there aren't any good ones (say, on par with the Wikia Futurama one), then it might be worth a shot. Arrested Development is funny, but not my particular cup o' tea. If you do that, I guess I'll participate (mainly for Grammar Gripes), but I won't be a major contributor. Stargate is okay. Farscape is better. And Lexx is hilarious. I know nobody mentioned that, but it's a funny show. And highly Canadian. I personally feel more in touch with the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre, so anything along those lines would float my boat quite nicely. There's already an amazing wiki for Lost, and of course Star Wars and Star Trek. Firefly is nice, because it has the underground/cult following that makes it easier to quickly become the best, just like Futurama did. They could be sister-wikis. Or something. But as for the actual doing of it, I'm totally neutral on whether or not it should be done. --Buddy 01:21, 18 August 2008 (BST)
 * I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where you stand, but neutrals?  Who knows!?  It sickens me. --SvipTalk 02:12, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Referencing other episodes.
Should we place a "References to Other Episodes" section into an episode article if it is not present (I've seen a few with "Inside References")? There are a bunch that I think would link together many episode but aren't there and I was wondering if there is a reason for it or if it's just that there were more important things to complete at the time. -Mini-Me 00:34, 23 August 2008 (BST)
 * I'd prefer "Continuity", sounds more sophisticated. And I think the reason if they are not there, is because we are slackers. --SvipTalk 01:05, 23 August 2008 (BST)
 * Sounds good, but I noticed shortly after posting this that there are a couple of notes under Trivia that should be in Continuity. Should that all be filtered around or new/unadded stuff in Continuity only? -Mini-Me 03:47, 23 August 2008 (BST)
 * Those are probably items left astray from our old standards. Something we should have fixed months ago.  But we have a lot to see to, and we are few contributors. --SvipTalk 11:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)
 * Wasn't somebody just saying that there wasn't much left to do? That's crazy talk! --Buddy 20:11, 23 August 2008 (BST)
 * I could start sorting through those, starting at 101 and working up (while doing the remaining commentaries, of course). Not particularly busy this year and that back up I did will help out a ton. -Mini-Me 01:13, 24 August 2008 (BST)
 * What of the prerequisite sections that a few (four) articles have? That's another section that fits this grouping. It also has those fancy hidden text whosits Svip came up with, see here. One of those still has the fast forward section too... - Quolnok 03:27, 24 August 2008 (BST)
 * Found that discussion: Talk:Bender's Big Score - Quolnok 03:31, 24 August 2008 (BST)
 * I'd like to stop you there, let us not use those systems until they are more or less perfected. As of right now, I am not entirely pleased with them.  And there may be too much rework to do if we began splattering all over the place.  So let's leave them where they are now, and call it that. --SvipTalk 03:53, 24 August 2008 (BST)
 * Stop me where? I was simply noting that they existed. - Quolnok 05:06, 24 August 2008 (BST)
 * No, what I meant, is that someone might pick it up and believe it needs addition, so I am just stopping them in doing it right now. Seemed like the appropriate time to mention it. --SvipTalk 12:36, 24 August 2008 (BST)

After thinking about it for a while now, I'm not very content with just having the major ones listed, especially when the show has a vast amount of little call backs and foreshadows. Perhaps a page can be put together with all episodes listing out how they link to others. I wonder how long that would be. Or something else entirely. Just an idea. -Mini-Me 17:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)
 * Foreshadowing can easily fit into a section on the relevant article for the concept or character (as well as its appearances section). Episode articles shouldn't have pages of stuff in these sections. Unless I'm mistaken, these sections were based on the ones used at hrwiki.org (considerably shorter animations) they tend to include the most relevant stuff in the article then create an extra article for pretty much any recurring concept, we don't have it quite to that extent yet. On a related note, anyone want to do a Nicknames article? - Quolnok 02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)

"Bad news, nobody."
Has anyone noticed any dead pages around here, aside from those that don't exist? If so please make a note of it here. I've just fixed Sal, it had been failling constantly. Apparently this is due to the load put on the server by some templates.

Reviewing the code of the es template I can see that it is a long switch statement that calls another template that probably doesn't need to be there. The overall number of es, e, eni and c templates on the page are the likely cause. Don't worries though, and don't start cutting all of them out of pages either. Unless you can't get that page to load on multiple occasions despite others working, that's when you can start doing it, or tell us. - Quolnok 13:18, 24 August 2008 (BST)
 * As it turns out, the issue has resurfaced, and worse than before given that Sal is down again. Perhaps our server doesn't like peak usage periods. Unfortunately, my recommendation is the complete phasing out of es, e, eni and c templates. No new pages should make use of these. Currently it seems any page with more than one or two that isn't cached fails during the peak. es and eni can be replaced by a standard wikilink e and c are to be replaced by the elink, flink and clink templates that already exist. To edit a non-loading page add &action=edit to the end of the url, or wait for someone else to get to it. luckily, there are lists of these articles that have been assembled by the mediawiki software.
 * Replace with wikilinks :
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:es
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:eni
 * Replace with or  :
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:e
 * Replace with :
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:c
 * The only exceptions are the links to minicomics, which currently have no suitable substitute templates and those in userboxes and user pages. These will be replaced later and are considered a much lower priority. - Quolnok 08:34, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Futurama Returns doesn't work. i can't get it to work so could someone else?--My leg feels funny! 06:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fixed now. There are many articles currently now working, and it's a symptom of a deeper problem that is being worked on. - Quolnok 10:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Acts
How do we know the act names? Unless there's information on the act names I think we should get rid of them and just put Act (1/2/3). Chris of the Futurama 19:09, 25 August 2008 (BST)
 * As I understand it, there are only act names on Anthology of Interest I and II. Namely the names of the sub episodes.  For the films, we have only used names of the sub episodes as well, and avoided labelling those acts that has no name.  As I gather it, since it was before I came here, the act names are purely fan based, often a quote from the act, to summarise it. --SvipTalk 19:59, 25 August 2008 (BST)
 * Aren't they from the inside of the cases from the DVDs? -Mini-Me 01:07, 26 August 2008 (BST)
 * Yes, act names for season 1-4 are (or possibly were) from the DVD cases, however they vary between regions in some seasons. Anthology of Interest I & II are exceptions. Most comics lack Act names, except when there's odd groupings of pages (Bender Breaks Out) and the game uses the character whose face is on the icon of the corresponding FMV. - Quolnok 12:26, 26 August 2008 (BST)
 * As Quolnok said, the act names are listed on the inside sleeves of Seasons 1-4 (Region 1). We've had some people trying to make up their own quotes, not realizing where we got the titles from, and they were wrong! Anyway, yeah. If they're diferent in other regions, I'd like to know what they are (with pictures, if we could!) --Buddy 21:59, 29 August 2008 (BST)
 * the act names are different on the Monster Robot Maniac Fun Collection so could i maybe change them to those ones? unless they are the official and not fan made act names...--My leg feels funny! 22:25, 29 August 2008 (BST)

A list of quaternary characters?
Quaternary characters are, in my opinion, characters that does not deserve their own article. Because they are so insignificant, and may not even have a minor influence on the plotline. But may be of interest, due to voice acting, etc. A good example, is the man from Space Pilot 3000, who utters "Pfft, tourist" when Fry crashes into the building coming out of the tube. So I am asking if we should make such a comprehensive list? --SvipTalk 00:32, 29 August 2008 (BST)
 * How do you mean? The character's info in one article? Chris of the Futurama 03:52, 29 August 2008 (BST)
 * No, a list of characters with their information. Like List of Planets. --SvipTalk 09:15, 29 August 2008 (BST)
 * Like the now defunct Minor Characters article? I suppose that would be a definition for quaternary. Would that include Shawn or Fry's-old-neighbour-who-never-closed-her-curtains, or are they tertiary and quintinary? - Quolnok 11:50, 29 August 2008 (BST)
 * Shawn is mentioned too often to be considered quaternary. But Fry's neighbour who never closed her curtains could be one.  She is mentioned and has no impact on the plot.  Shawn, however, does have actions to what Leela does at times. --SvipTalk 14:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)

what like wikipedias list of recuring charecters --Dr zoidberg 14 18:15, 29 August 2008 (BST)

More affiliates?
So far, we got Futurama Madhouse and The Futurama Point as our affiliates, we link to them (though not enough by my standards) and they link to us.

In addition to linking to them from our Community Portal, I was hoping we could add them to the Sidebar (note: In a newer version of MediaWiki, it is possible to move the search field around in the Sidebar as well, check out Wikipedia's) and possibly get more affiliates? Unlike other fansites, we actual provide factual content, but are not a site you listen to for up to date content, even though we have that as well. So I was thinking, perhaps the people at Got Futurama might be willing. I am just throwing suggestions out there people! --SvipTalk 15:32, 6 September 2008 (BST)
 * Silence! I concur. I once tried finding how to put the little image button for their sites under the toolbox, but found nothing despite knowing it to be possible. I guess I didn't look hard enough. I'd suggest possibly adding PEEL to the list as well. - Quolnok 15:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)
 * Splice in some reaction shots of me and shove it in the sidebar. --Buddy 23:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Obsoletely Fabulous
Although the characters in "Obsoletely Fabulous" would only seem to exist in Benders dream, I could have sworn I saw at least one of them in the audience for the Opera on "Devils hands are idle playthings." Can anyone confirm that for me? (DVD player broke u.u) -Jamklev 18:49, 18 September 2008 (BST)
 * Bender's dream is probably based on reality, like most dreams are anyway. So the robots probably exist, but them being on the island and all that just never happened.  I am sure you've done things with people you know in your dreams that never actually happened.  So is this. --SvipTalk 00:55, 19 September 2008 (BST)
 * I was just curious if we wanted to put something in on their pages saying they do exist outside the dream (and also update the EP's they are in)Jamklev 21:57, 19 September 2008 (BST)
 * So long as the appearances list notes that the robots are separate individuals. It will be like the Robot 1-X article, more about the model of robot than an individual. - Quolnok 03:35, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Suggested Articles
i think these articles should be made
 * Weapons (like List of products with things like Decapodian Weapons and Planetary annihilator, or just make a catergory)
 * Star Trek Connections (like Simpsons Connections except Star Trek.there are loads of pages which have loads of references. it just deserves it)
 * Money (just say currency like in all the episodes)

if anyone wants to tackle these they can. just suggestions that's all. -- the preceding unsigned comment was written by Scruffy.
 * A list of weapons article may be interesting, but I am not so sure about Star Trek connections. The Simpsons connection article is there because the Simpsons refer back to Futurama, something that Star Trek doesn't.  Perhaps it could be part of a popular culture references article, similar to in popular culture, but the other way around.  As for a currency article, I am not so sure what exactly we could write in there, we've basically tackled all that in the necessary articles. --SvipTalk 12:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think those could be good articles. Why not, eh? Chris of the Futurama 21:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Weapons, because there are enough to be an interesting and long article. The downside is that so many of them are not named (like the laser pistol that vaporized President McNeil);that could make an article difficult. As for Star Trek, I have no problem with that. It would be fun to have a list, but too many lists gets cumbersome. And it is true that Star Trek doesn't refer back, so "Connections" could be the wrong title. "References" or "Homages" would be more appropriate, if we decide to go forward with that. As for money... It really seems like monetary value is around the same as it is now (could discuss how that's possible: inflation countered by massive depression, or artificially removing money from the economy to increase its value, etc.), so I see little reason for an article. Oh, other than the fact that money in the future is water-soluble. Even the coins. Current money isn't. --Buddy 23:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly, you'd think that'd be a step back!? Also, Buddy, when are you getting Internet!?  You talked about getting Internet a year ago, shesh! --SvipTalk 23:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SOON! I just quit my job! And I anticipate a new job within the next day or two. Said job will pay real money (like, not a lot, but way more than being a delivery boy), and I will thusly acquire said net of inter. --Buddy 22:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute! Your country is bankrupt!  How can you get a new job!?  But how expensive is Internet over there? --SvipTalk 22:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're willing to settle for dialup, you could get it for around $10/month. But seeing as how I'm not a cave-man, it'll probably cost at least $30/month or more. Maybe up to $50/month. But I don't know yet. And yes, we're in a great depression. Greater than the first one. But our gas prices are finally coming down because everyone traded in their SUV's and got hybrids. --Buddy 22:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hate to disappoint you, sir, but Internet uses cables to communicate, not oil. Well, and electricity, but I think people have more to whine about than oil prices right now.  It may even be entertaining finally getting the opportunity to talk to you through an IM service. --SvipTalk 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (I'm not indenting any more!) Oil prices affect almost everything. In fact, some service industries in the US started adding "Fuel Surcharges" to their prices to offset their own fuel costs. But anyway. As for the upcoming election, the US economy is pretty much the major concern. Though I wish we hadn't had this breakdown, because I personally feel that there are more important issues that will now be ignored in favour of the economic crisis... This is why I ignore politics, for the most part. --Buddy 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we get back on topic now?--My leg feels funny! 04:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Countdowns...
Hey, me again. Um, it seems the countdowns have stopped... Is there a reason for this? Chris of the Futurama 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems fine now, yo. Fry217 01:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Easter Eggs
Do we have a page for the easter eggs on the DVD's? I couldn't find one, and I think if someone got the time, they should try to get one going. Jamklev 16:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC) yhea sure why not i ll get one going Asap --Dr zoidberg 14 21:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Easter eggs are already mentioned on the DVD's listing. We only list what they are, not where to find them. Although now that we have such fancy scripting, we could hide the location (similar to a spoiler) and unhide it for people that want to know where to find the easter eggs. Although, now reviewing those pages, they could probably use an update. --Buddy 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

oh then ill delete the page i made --Dr zoidberg 14 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any progress on this being made? Cuz now I want to know where all the easter eggs are. Especially on the three movies. I haven't found those ones, and I want to be sure I've found all the ones on the previous seasons as well... --Buddy 23:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blu-Ray Bender's Game
I am able to provide screen captures from the HD version of the movie, but am I allowed to or do they fall under the same category as DVD screen caps? -Mini-Me 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Falls in the same category. But our image policy is clear that we prefer HD screencaps over regular DVD caps.  Also, I also got the Blu-Ray disc, /me dripples --SvipTalk 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's fantastic. Turns out my monitor isn't HDCP compliant and I cannot get screencaps. Hopefully I can find a way around this, ripping the video track or something... -Mini-Me 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will never buy a Sony product! I'm sitting this generation of media out. The only reason BluRay won was because they forced a player on everyone who bought a PS3. Boo Sony! Sony is known for terrible proprietary formats, so why did we all fall for this BluRay crap?! Dah! --Buddy 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am no Sony fan either. I mainly have the PS3 so I can mess around with it.  Toshiba said that it redrew its HD DVD from the market for the sole reason of ending the format war early on, so they could focus on producing the same format for everyone.  Unfortunately, I begin now realising that perhaps the HD DVD format was better than Blu-Ray.  As for the names, I think both are terrible.  I only bought the Blu-Ray version of Bender's Game to see what it was like.  Other than a video commentary, you don't really get much else.  Cartoons in HD are not that a significant an improvement over SD (Standard Definition) cartoons.
 * But don't worry, Buddy, most people are sitting this format generation out. Mainly because DVDs came rather recently (compared to VHS), and DVDs were are large improvement over VHS, so consumers could easily see the gain.  But Blu-Ray and HD DVD failed to gain the same confidence in consumers.  The appreciation of HD is not something that is easy to perceive on a regular Television, even a Full HD television.  To really get the feel of HD, you need a home cinema.  The point is, Blu-Ray won't be a success in the long run.  At least, not as big as VHS or DVD was.  Or CD for that matter. --SvipTalk 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Blu-Ray proprietary to Sony? I was unaware of that. There really is barely a difference except dimensions of the screens and the fact instead of going to slight static it goes to nothingness. I still intend to get a PS3 someday, I've gone back to hand-helds for the moment, but I think better discs are a step in the wrong direction, they should focus on refining cartridge/memory card technology as the primary medium. - Quolnok 04:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think solid-state is the way to go for the future. Flash memory is inadequate at the moment for high-demand applications (because it has a life-cycle shorter than a computer's hard disk should be), but if they figure out another way, that would be awesome. Imagine movies being sold on the equivalent of pre-loaded SD cards or little USB drives. --Buddy 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image standards and choices
I have been dealing with a lot of thoughts regarding the images on our wiki, both legally, picking and standards.

First of all, licencing. I think we need a standard box on every image page (could use one of those MediaWiki: messages to add it), stating the usage, the licence and whatnot about the image. I know we have our disclaimer page, but it would be neater for legal reasons to have it on the image page. Now I know, we have not yet have any legal issues regarding our images yet, but it is better to beat the competition before they reaches us.

Then is picking. A good example of what I am worried about is the Dr. John A. Zoidberg article. I don't like the choice of picture for this article, especially because Zoidberg is only drawn with teeth in 3 episodes, making the picture giving a misrepresentation of him. Another example is Kif Kroker, no where else do we use the design sketch for characters in their infobox, however, speaking of design sketches, I think they should be supplied in every article they are available (so, at least all main characters and major secondary characters). Then comes a third example, a bit different, as to supply my thoughts, the Zapp Brannigan article. While the picture is not extremely bad, I think we can actually provide a better picture. I am speaking of the picture where he says "I am the man with no name", cause the facial expression and line sums the Zapp Brannigan character up quite well. And it omits having Kif in the picture.

Standards is basically a relying on the picking, plus some more technical issues. I propose that for every character article, where an image can be provided, it must have been taken from the show or film (depending on where the character is). If a design sketch is available for a character, it must be provided in the article, but only as an image within the article, to give air to the article, and avoid give the reader the feeling that it is not just text. While content is good, images helps. And lastly, this is not a standard, but rather an encouragement, if you see an image for a character, and think it can be done better, don't hesitate, don't go silent, provide arguments in its talk page, be either the image's talk page or the character article's talk page.

There was probably more I wanted to add, but I forget now. But I guess this is enough to get some discussion started. --SvipTalk 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of those early pics were uploaded by myself (at the time, there were no other users who could get screenshots of DVD's...) and I tried to use the following standards:


 * A full-screen image (I think the first Zapp pic was a cropped close-up)
 * As soon after the character first appeared as possible (keeping the first criterion in mind)
 * The Character depicted should, if possible, be the only character on screen
 * Fairly representative of the character (keeping the first two criteria in mind)
 * So that's where we get a lot of the primary and secondary character pics. But I'm all for updating them. Especially if it'll look better in the long run. Especially, as you note, the teeth thing. Zoidberg shouldn't have teeth (I didn't even notice them in the pic, so good observation), so it should really be updated. And Zapp's should have Kiff removed. I think I picked that image because it was so boastful that it was perfect, but it does have another character in the image, so it's not ideal. And now that nearly all of our members can provide screenshots, there's no reason they can't be updated. As for the character design sketches, they actually used to be on several pages, but they were deemed unsuitable for the main image, and they just went away. I'm sure they're still in the database, and they'd be fine lower down the page, but they just weren't good main images (as you pointed out for Kif). --Buddy 23:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
I know we have been discussing this before, but I want to talk about it in a different perspective. Let me start off by an example, take "Time Keeps on Slippin'", I want to see its article using the Firefox search engine, where I have - of course - have The Infosphere, but if I type "time keeps on slippin'" (as I would often do, given my usage of Google up there), I am met with this.

That is a slight annoyance. Therefore I am proposing to write a bot that creates all these "complete lowercase redirects", cause it would simply be too much human work. In addition, I am proposing adding a system so you can easily tell it to redirect several "articles" to a single article, e.g. "1ACV01", "1acv01", "1", "space pilot 3000" -> "Space Pilot 3000".

I'd love to write this bot, and maybe it'll get more features than just redirecting, but I want to hear what you think. Don't worry, I'll just use User:SvipBot. --SvipTalk 18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have begun writing on it, and it can now perform some redirects (check its page for results). It currently just gets 10 random articles from the database, then test each of them if they require a redirect, if yes, it asks to create one, if a redirect or an article exists in its place, it will cancel the operation and continue to the next article.  However, it cannot handle titles with special characters... yet. --SvipTalk 12:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet for Buddy!
Next Woden's Day, I shall have the internet! I just called the company today (yes, they were open on Thanksgiving... wtf?) and they'll be over next week. Hooray! --Buddy 23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Woo! Will you be able to instant messaging and such then? --SvipTalk 02:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm now online! Give me a few days to get everything set up, but yeah. Theoretically, I'll have IM and whatnot. --Buddy 00:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still have your MSN contact on my list. Still waiting for that day you come online!  It has been 1.5 years \o/ --SvipTalk 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, signing in to MSN has failed. I think the account expired (which is odd, since it's stuck with me for ten+ years... oh well). I'll have to sign up for new IM accounts. I've installed Pidgin, so I can use multiple clients' networks. I'll post the new contact info on my user page when I finish with that. I have a huge to-do list now that I'm online. All sorts of stuff to update. --Buddy 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you have gmail, you can use their Gtalk, which I also use, since it is Jabber based. --SvipTalk 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Current Events
What happened to the Current Events page? Whenever I go to the link, I get this. What happened to it? Chris of the Futurama 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it is just called Current events, without the project name in front, I am going to fix that. --SvipTalk 14:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, before it wasn't working, and now it is. Chris of the Futurama 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be because I just fixed it. --SvipTalk 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks. I thought it was just my computer. He he. Chris of the Futurama 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers
We have a template, but I am beginning to think we don't need it anymore. I mean, really, you are on a Futurama wiki, you'd expect there to be spoilers? I recently learnt that Wikipedia's policy is not to warn users of spoilers. That is not what an encyclopædia is about. Since I consider the Infosphere an encyclopædia, with focus on Futurama (obviously), I say we should tackle it in the same way, and not hand out spoiler warnings. It's not like people are going to whine or anything. --SvipTalk 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's not like Wikipedia has spoilers for their movie articles. Chris of the Futurama 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we only started it for the new movies, because some of us hadn't seen whatever new one there was at the time. Then it went away a month or so after that movie's release. If, like me, you wish to avoid spoilers before you see the movie, you can just avoid the page, like I did. So yeah, we could probably ditch it. --Buddy 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Firefox Search Plugin
I know somebody created one, and now that I'm at home on my own browser, I needs it agains. Care to gives me the locations? --Buddy 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy, see the icon where it probably has the Google logo in your browser? If it shines a little (e.g. blue), click it, then in the drop-down menu there should be an "Add The Infosphere".  Much easier. --SvipTalk 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did that, but for some reason, it didn't add the icon properly. Like, the search engine was listed, but it had no icon. I worked hard on that icon, I want to see it every day. ;) Hence my asking. I was hoping the normal way would work better... I shall try again. --Buddy 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the icon doesn't work, for some reason. Slightly annoying, but if you get it from here, you can avoid that.  Oh and btw, you can find that link in Community Portal.  Crazy? --SvipTalk 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, according to that link it was someone called "Quolnok" who made it. That's a weird name. - Quolnok 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture and beyond!
After getting someone noticed of the in popular culture article again, I was thinking of perhaps it was time to device references to popular culture, which will be its reverse counter part. Someone have already suggested a Star Trek references article, but given how Star Wars refers to Futurama (at least in the expanded universe), perhaps a Star Wars connections article would also be in order? As a rule of the thumb, if the show does not reference us, like Star Trek, use " references", if it works both ways, us " connections" and only they reference Futurama and not back, leave it in the in popular culture article (so far, I fail to see some popular culture referencing a real lot to Futurama without Futurama considering it, but I could be wrong). --SvipTalk 09:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bender's Game Opening Title Sequence
In Bender's Game Opening Title Sequence the yellow ‘shipmarine’ flies threw a corroder of numbers. These numbers seem to be none repeating. In the commentary David X Cohen said that the number’s ment something and to search them on Google. Smaller blocks of the numbers only bring up nonsensical pages that have nothing to do with mathematics. I was convinced that these sequences were from pi however when searching the first 200 million placements no matches were found over a block size of 7. I’ve searched through as many abstract non-repeating mathematical concepts I could think of but I’m just completely stumped to the meaning of these numbers and if they put in random not in order blocks from pi then any numeric will fit because as you may know 6 or 7 digit blocks are found at almost 100% of the time in pi. Does any one else have another idea? -- the preceding unsigned comment was written by JoelleEmmily.
 * They had a similar discussion on Wikipedia, where they concluded it was e/the natural log. I hope that helps. --SvipTalk 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Partnership" with Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha is the best wiki for Star Trek information, but you probably already know this. However, I think it would be neat if we, instead of linking to Wikipedia, linked to Memory Alpha for Star Trek information. And I have asked them if they are willing to do the reverse. I propose startrek: for our interwiki link. --SvipTalk 14:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * i think its a pretty good idea. i like it. our Star Trek Connections would be awesome. maybe linking with Wookieepedia aswell maybe?--My leg feels funny! 21:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have just started a discussion at their wiki, so hopefully they'll be interested as well. However, if none of them agrees, we are still going to link to theirs, as I am (or I suppose, we are) fully confident it would provide for much better links than to Wikipedia. --SvipTalk 15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed indeed. --Buddy 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, neither have responded to my request. But I don't blame them.  It's Christmas of all times.  However, I have created the following interwiki links: startrek: and starwars:.  So now we can at least link to their wiki with interwiki links. --SvipTalk 13:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sentence case vs title case
There are two common "cases" of writing in English; sentence case and title case. First an example of the two;
 * Title case
 * The Man Shot the English Deer


 * Sentence case
 * The man shot the English deer

My preference is the sentence case in article titles. I think "Star Trek references" look a lot better than "Star Trek References". "Star Trek", in this example, remain in uppercase for the sole reason that it itself is a name which is written in title case, which is also the reason why the episode article titles won't be changed either. So if you are going to make an article about "Easter eggs", keep it "Easter eggs". It is best in context, so we don't have to make "dubious" links all the time (e.g. what I am saying ), because it is more common to write sentences in sentence case (hence its name) than title case.

I may have bought this issue up before, but I never think we got a clear discussion on it, as I still see articles that isn't required to be in title case created in the case anyway. --SvipTalk 14:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Title case should only be for titles. Chris of the Futurama 16:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Domain Renewal
I think we all really really like "theinfosphere.org" -- I think we mentioned that we'd see if we liked it, and I think we do. Really really. The renewal is coming up in February, and rather than make a mistake by letting it lapse, I've gone ahead and set it to automatically renew every year ad infinitum (or as long as Dreamhost is a company). If anyone really hates the domain name... too bad. Just thought I'd let you guys know: The domain is ours and should continue to be ours for the foreseeable future. --Buddy 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Levelling system
I have been thinking of copying a system that Wikipedia uses to decide what are good articles and what are... not so good articles. I am not directly copying the system, but only the idea. I propose our own system to more fit our needs.

The levelling system will consist of 5 levels, indicating the quality of an article, along with 3 focus levels (plus a null-level), indicating the focus and the attention the article needs.

The proposed quality levels are as follows:


 * Stub
 * The article have just begun, and have only has 1 or 2 sentences, and indicates very little.


 * Start
 * The article have described the content of the topic at hand, but fails to evaluate it or give a thorough description of the subject.


 * Developed
 * The article gives its readers a fair overlook of the subject at hand, but the article is still lacking touch.


 * Good
 * The article conforms to all standards set, and its description is thorough and broad.


 * Brilliant
 * The article meets all the requirements of a good article, and in addition has an extra touch that just makes it nice to read.

The first 3 levels can be picked by a bot (which will be the intend in the end, I will add some code to my bot which will decide whether an article is a stub, start or developed), the two latter levels will be picked by users, and the last level, Brilliant must be picked by a vote.

Featured (or previously featured) articles will be mentioned, but will not fall into the levelling system, but the levelling system will be a good indicator when to pick a featured article.

The proposed focus levels are as follows:


 * Null
 * A focus for this article has not been set (default)


 * C
 * Little or no focus


 * B
 * Medium focus


 * A
 * High focus

Each talk page for an article, will include a template on top indicating the levels and whether or not it has been featured before. The template have not yet been created. The first discussion is on whether this system works. --SvipTalk 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. It'll let the users know which articles we can focus on, and it may draw attention to articles that are very stubby, so they can be expanded. --Buddy 17:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Image delete
Probably a stupid question but, how does one delete an image. There are a couple of images i've uploaded that i would like to delete due to not being used.--My leg feels funny! 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And how do you delete pages? That guy I know 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only sysops can delete images and pages. It's a limited feature as it causes more troubles than an edit or even an move. --SvipTalk 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

well here's a list of images that i think should be deleted by a sysop because unused, low quality, duplicate etc. just a few.--My leg feels funny! 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:To Be Deleted

No Red Dwarf?
I could've sworn there used to be a reference to the connections with Red Dwarf. I mean, the main character is put in stasis to wake up in the future, he's got a robot for a friend, and he turns out to be his own father (not grandfather, but still!). Also, they're both dumb and have poor hygiene. Was it deleted or did it never exist? Searching turns up nothing. Should it be mentioned? --Buddy 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and does have some similarities. It should at least have some mention. That guy I know 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. It's funny that Red Dwarf ended in 1999, the same year Futurama started. Though, merely a coincidence. I think . ..
 * Never seen it myself, probably would if it came on TV at anypoint. Should be mentioned in some trivia section somewhere. - Quolnok 09:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice about the new film!
To anyone who had got the opportunity to view the film (Into the Wild Green Yonder) early. Only provide articles with "raw" facts, nothing plot spoiling or anything. Don't update character pages, even though they are out of date. Wait till the film is released on 23 February. Add stuff like who voices who or fixing specific names and such is allowed. While we may not warn about spoilers, people shouldn't expect to find the information already here. This is just a heads up to all contributors. And also a place where you can refer other to if they have not seen this notice.

Thanks, and good editing. --SvipTalk 23:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, film is released in Europe -- knock yourselves out! --SvipTalk 11:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect.
sorry to sound like a noob, but how do you redirect pages?--My leg feels funny! 03:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all in the wrist.
 * #REDIRECTtarget page
 * - Quolnok 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. thanks for that!--My leg feels funny! 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect...
Now, what I am trying to do is to redirect "List of (Futurama) Characters", but when i put in , it puts it as a category. And when I ignore wiki formating, it still doesn't work. Help? Chris of the Futurama2 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Try Category:Characters . --SvipTalk 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tenth Anniversary?
It is soon getting the 28th of March. And while we can all start debating when Futurama really started, 28 March is a safe bet, cause that would mark the airing of the first episode of Futurama on air. In such an occasion, and our ca. 1% way to the year 3000 since then, I think we should celebrate it with a Main Page redrawing and keep it on for a week, specifically the one in which the 28th of March falls.

Exactly how remains sketchy, but we still have a month's planning. --SvipTalk 10:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least we can change the tags to something. - Quolnok 11:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like "My God, a percentage of a million years!" ? --SvipTalk 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add, that the new CSS design is planned to be released upon the anniversary. --SvipTalk 17:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New Futurama shirt!
Thinkgeek.com has just released a new shirt for all the nerdlingers of the world! --Buddy 00:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New CSS!
It has crossed my mind occasionally in the past since we got the new skin that it could be even better. And finally I have taken steps in that direction. You can see the new code at User:Svip/monobook.css, which - if you want to use it - can "transclude" to your own  User:/monobook.css  page with using, that way, when I update it, yours will be updated as well. However, it will also mean you may spot oddities at time.

I present to you my first screenshot of the progress. Oh and, don't mind all my tabs. It's the design that is in focus. A note, if you will, when you select the search field, its background lights up (to indicate focus, obviously). --SvipTalk 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I like the orangey colour, but it probably looks better in practice. We could also use maybe a semi-tranparent PNG for the BG of the search field, and then an opaque or less-transparent one when it's got focus. There's a similar thing in some elements of Vista which I like. Just a suggestion... And since alpha-channel PNG's default to grey in older browsers, it would degrade nicely (i.e., text would still be readable) --Buddy 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new screenshot. Still working on it. --SvipTalk 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet another! I think we're getting there.  Opinions? --SvipTalk 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The colours don't have quite enough contrast, particularly the links in the left box and the visited links in the sidebar. - Quolnok 02:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The front page was a quick fix. And the sidebar is still an issue I am having some trouble getting around.  But browsing articles (I just went through random ones), I am very pleased with my new scheme.  I will not say it's done, but it's certainly getting there. --SvipTalk 02:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New redirect rule
If you are linking to an article that do not exist, but its content exists in another article as a subsection, don't fix your link, instead, create the page as a redirect instead.

e.g. The Monks of Shubah only exists within the Religion article, but instead of changing a link to them from The Monks of Shubah to The Monks of Shubah, simply created the The Monks of Shubah as a redirect to this subsection.

Reason? There are plenty of cases where we would like to get certain parts of a group article or similar out of it, e.g. like we got Donbot out of the Robot Mafia article. But if pages link to the Robot Mafia article, rather than the Donbot article, when they mean him, it becomes a pickle fixing all these links, that would be required to be fixed. There will be exceptions to this rule, but right now I cannot think of any. --SvipTalk 16:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)