Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Archive5

Glacial access speed
Am I the only one having major problems accessing Wikicities? I was trying to relocate the LucasArts games' pages and fix the redirects when the whole domain suddenly slowed to a crawl. And I know it's not my connection, because I have the same problem here at work hours later. It took me over 10 minutes just to get this question posted! Anyone have any ideas about what's up? &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  21:50, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Its slow for me, even on DSL. Took two minutes to save, seconds to load though. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:14, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also got a high-speed connection and I'm experiencing this as well. Sometimes it can be really fast, but 90% of the time it's terribly slow. Hollis 03:41, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like it's Slashdot's fault. Uncyclopedia got slashdotted, and they're also hosted by Wikia. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  04:09, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, has been slashdotted three times in the last month.  WhiteBoy 21:15, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've encountered some slowdown today but was able to get all of Carty's maps up. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:28, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedia has outgrown Memory Alpha
At least in the number of articles. As I'm writing this, we have 14555 articles and MA has 14540. - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:17, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * If I may say so...pwned. And also consider that they started two years ago, whereas we started seven months ago. MarcK 04:22, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Much work have we still to do. Many stubs have we. Many articles lacking encyclopedic style as well. --SparqMan 09:05, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * But this number is excluding stubs. MarcK 09:08, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It does? --beeurd 10:24, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Counting stubs, talk pages, redirects etc., they have about 4,000 more pages than we do.

Should we change the look of the Stub?
I have always held the opinion that "Stub" notifications make articles on this wiki look ugly. I have come up with a new look for the stub notifications, you can check it out on this page to see what you think. Please discuss here. --Azizlight 04:59, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although it may be better for the "Expand this article" link to go on the same line. - Sikon [ Talk ] 10:16, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Master Starkeiller 11:38, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think it might look better with the image still beside it, but keeping the text as it is (in the test) on separate lines. I could be wrong though. --beeurd 13:23, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but put all the text on one line, maybe? Centering it would look good, too, but not necessary. StarNeptune 23:45, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay I've added some alternative variations in response to the feedback, check them out. --Azizlight 00:00, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Of the new options, I like #3 best. The problem this variety is that a user inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia or Wookieepedia would not understand what that little box means. A "stub" means nothing to someone who has not experience the Wikipedia culture. So, less text is nice, but only if we're okay with reducing its communicative effectiveness. --SparqMan 01:09, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think there's really anything wrong with the way Wikipedia does it. It makes the situation clear even to novice users. The point of the stub notification is for the article to be expanded. The new suggestions are plenty ugly, and they're less informative. – Aidje talk 02:25, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These new versions are uglier than the originals. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:32, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the existing versions are less obtrusive and more informative than the proposed replacements. jSarek 02:38, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * My main problem with the way stubs look at the moment is that they are too similar to the rest of the text within the article. I mean it's just italicized with a little picture next to it. I think it looks messy. Why is it that every other little notification on Wiki has a neat little box, but the Stubs are left very raw and messy looking? I think they look horrible. I don't see how the new suggestions are any uglier than the current stubs. Maybe we could keep the stub text as it is, but just put it in a neat box and make the text smaller? --Azizlight 02:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Just added one more suggestion... see the bottom one... Template:Newsample-stub --Azizlight 02:48, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Bingo. This one has my Support. jSarek 02:52, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support on option #4. Nicely done. --SparqMan 02:51, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe if it was resized slightly smaller so that it wouldn't appear so fat. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:53, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have slightly decreased the size of the image so the stub doesn't look so "fat" :-) --Azizlight 03:53, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It's getting there. – Aidje talk 03:21, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for the last one. StarNeptune 03:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for the last two ones with white background, although I'd prefer the one with the image. Maybe we should move this discussion to Consensus track? - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:37, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Many of the common main tags that are featured in article headers feature relatively large images. Can we perhaps abandon the use of images in stub tags? It would certainly make them slimmer and emphasize the emptiness of stubs. I've added an example with no image here: Template:Newsample-stub--SparqMan 05:25, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that was the problem. And yet I like the images. Frack! -- Riffsyphon1024 05:34, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I too like the images there. I think the second white one (with the smaller image) looks ther better of the proposals. --beeurd 20:10, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with beeurd. &mdash; Silly Dan  02:27, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it looks best with an image (the smaller one). I don't think image size is an issue, since that little symbol of Anakin is only 1K in size. --Azizlight 03:36, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now cleaned up the new template page so that now only the most popular template remains. Is it safe to say that we have reached a consensus on this issue? --Azizlight 22:35, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Much better. It now has my vote. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:58, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed only the Template:Planet-stub to the new look, as a trial of sorts. Check out some Planet stubs and leave feedback here. If people are still happy with the new look, i'll go ahead and change the rest of the stubs. Cheers. --Azizlight 01:54, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * We also need to decide whether these stub notifications go above or below the appearances/sources sections. Please see the discussion about a Layout Guide on the Wookieepedia talk:Manual of Style page. --Azizlight 02:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be no further discussion, I am now going ahead and changing the stubs throughout Wookieepedia. --Azizlight 00:02, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the resized images on the new stubs have shrunk to the point of being unrecognizable. I recommend we find new images that work at the very tiny scale (icons in nature) or abandon them entirely. --SparqMan 00:31, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, we need icons that all have the same dimensions. --Azizlight 00:37, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Name of the wiki
Since the Star Trek people call their wiki "Memory Alpha," based on an in-universe database, why not call this wiki "The Holocron" or something? Adamwankenobi 09:12, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * There's already an (official, but private) SW database by that name, see Holocron continuity database. - Sikon [ Talk ] 12:05, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that, but my idea is that it would be the name of this database as well. It certainly would hbe appropriate, since this encyclopedia is supposed to act as a record of history. Adamwankenobi 12:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought we already decided we're "Wookieepedia"? &mdash; Silly Dan  01:42, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just that "The Holocron" would seem more appropriate and professional sounding for what we are trying to do. Adamwankenobi 02:10, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude you can't call it The Holocron, as Sikon said, that is the name of the Official database. Wookieepedia is fine - it sounds like Wiki, it sounds like an encyclopedia, and it sounds Star-Warsy. --Azizlight 02:20, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course you can call it the Holocron. If the real holocron is private, we can be called holocron. --Master Starkeiller 19:36, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * You missed the point though... We already settled on Wookieepedia. --beeurd 19:48, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It's Wookieepedia because we are Wookieepedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:22, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry you missed the discussion, Adam. WhiteBoy 16:18, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)