Wikia's forums are a place for the community to discuss subjects with other members. Remember sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~
Click here to edit page

This topic contains discussion of possible changes to the wiki's overall format and policies (stuff like standards for articles, the wiki's theme, changes to templates, new rules, etc.). Think of it as a centralized talk page for things that affect multiple pages or the whole wiki.

Top navigation barEdit

Soon, I'm going to try turning on the new-style top navigation bar on the wiki. Please let me know if you like the new or old one better. Also, let me know how it could be improved, and if there's other stuff you'd like to see on it. --Cornprone 05:59, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oh did you already do this? ƒelinoel. 14:58, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

ChatEdit

OK, there's been some requests, so I've turned on he integrated Wikia chat. Let me know if there are any problems. --Cornprone 06:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem. In a way, I guess. People are making accounts just to chat. A reason why this a problem is becuase people are being very rude and constantly curse, and talk about innaproppriate things. Someone even tried pretending to be an admin, and everyone would beg to let him make them be promoted to an admin, even though they do absolutely nothing on the Wiki but... chat. Everyone constantly spams, and it's barely even chatting. Should I block them from chatting if this goes on any longer? A few people have been banned already. Sky Monster 23:02, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we should come up with some specific rules, so moderators know when to warn/ban people. But the larger question is, does chat actually add anything positive to the wiki? Do you guys actually want to keep it? It can be turned off. --Cornprone 23:33, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I want the chat to stay on, so yes, there should be rules. Sky Monster 23:34, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's some initial ideas about rules. Once we've set them, we should put them on a page that you can point people to if they need to see them.

• No personal insults (insults directed against other users on the wiki), threats of violence, or bullying
• Don't use multiple accounts to get around bans.
• No spamming. We can't make "saying dumb things" against the rules, but I'd say intentionally flooding the chat with nonsense or spam is a clear violation.
• I wouldn't ban someone just for swearing a couple of times. But excessive swearing or other adult content should not be allowed.

For most of these, moderators should issue a warning first. If the user fails to heed the warning, then they can be blocked.

What do you think about those rules? Anything to add? --Cornprone 23:53, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think these rules are consistent with the problems we have been facing with many users on the chat. Marshall Lee 00:00, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the rules are good. I always warn them to stop what they are doing, first. If I think of any rules, I'll tell about it here. Sky Monster 00:11, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

I thought of a rule. Lately, people have been role playing. I'm okay with this, I guess, as long as things don't get crazy with it. A few people took it too far, so I think there should be a rule for it. Sky Monster 00:13, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and what do you think about all these people making accounts just to chat? Sky Monster 00:48, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Regarding role playing, I guess it's OK, as long as people are not breaking the rules (i.e. no personal attacks, adult subject matter, etc.) Making an account just to chat is also fine. However, making multiple accounts to pretend to be multiple people or to get around bans is not OK. Those accounts should be blocked. --Cornprone 02:31, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to say that these rules are good and they apply to what some users have been doing, but I think we should make sure that everyone knows and understands these rules. Since many new users do not know them and I don't think we really made them official. Marshall Lee 20:31, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am sure once the rules get finalized and whatnot we will have a link to them on the main page with the regular rules. felinoel ~ (Talk) 20:18, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot to sign my name :P Marshall Lee 20:31, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I have someone claiming that they were banned from chat for no reason, to prevent further of this, maybe we should request screenshots for when someone gets banned to be posted on their user page? felinoel 20:01, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would have to be on the part of the Ban-er rather than the Ban-ee, though I assume this is what you meant? Also, Other wiki's have rules that people need x number of edits before they are allowed onto the chat. I think we should do that to, but they have to be mainspace edits that aren't reverted for any reason. I was thinking 10 to start off for now, but that may be too small. What do you all think? --Legendary Dark Knight 00:09, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with having that kind of exclusionary rule is that it's hard to enforce. Wouldn't the chat moderators have to spend all their time checking the contribution histories of users who come into chat, counting up un-reverted main namespace edits, constantly ordering people to "Get out!" and then issuing bans to those who don't? Do you really want to be doing that all the time? I wouldn't want chat to be like that. --Cornprone 01:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

That's what Special:Editcount is for. It separates the edit numbers into categories. As for the other thing, that might be problematic, but we have way too much arguement in that chat. I'm sure that the people that actually decide it's worth the time to make edits to the wiki will be the ones that aren't as hot-tempered, although there are exceptions. Other wiki's have that sort of stipulation to being able to use the chat, but I wouldn't be able to tell you how effective it actually is. --Legendary Dark Knight 01:54, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Bumping... --Legendary Dark Knight 05:12, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, after reading this I see that what you are looking for is the code of conduct I proposed down a bit on this page. felinoel 12:46, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a new rule in chat since many people do this:

Do not excessively advertise videos from any website.

I really dislike it when people do that, ya know. People are starting to annoy me, and not only that, it's also that some people are starting to post videos of sexual content excessively. Also, can we add an emoticon rule:

Do not use emoticons excessively.

I'm getting bothered with a lot of people using emoticons time by time, even using them to create emoticon stories! Also, people are not following the Do not use caps excessively rule. I see everyone using caps all the time. Thanks.

{{SUBST:User:Marceline_luv_29/Signature}}

Quote at top of character pagesEdit

I've noticed people have added a quote at the top of some character pages. First off, is this cool? Do you guys like having them there? And if so, should we transition them to use Template:Quote? --Cornprone 01:05, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on them, but I have seen the same things on other Wikis I checked out, so I guess that it is something people like on the pages. I'm not sure why it would need to be there, though. Sky Monster 01:20, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Now I do have an opinion. I removed a quotes from a few pages. One of them from the fionna page, was, like, a minute from the episode. Most of the quotes don't even come from the character, and they push down info that is actually important. I say that they should be removed. Sky Monster 23:01, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

OK, yeah, that quote on the Fionna page was long and awkward. Anyway, let's wait a bit and see if anyone really wants to keep these. If we don't hear from anybody, we'll go ahead and say quotes at the top of character pages shouldn't be there. --Cornprone 23:11, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

No objections yet... I'll just wait a little longer to see if anyone has something to say before removing them. Sky Monster 00:13, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably going to start removing quotes soon. I have seen quotes on 2 pages that take up a minute from the episode, and no one seems to really care about the being deleted, for some reason... Sky Monster 00:37, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I believe I requested this a while back, yay for forced integration! lol felinoel ~ (Talk) 12:51, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I misread this, I am for keeping them, they are fun and can be informative. felinoel 03:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with felinoel, I think they're an interesting way to introduce an article. I'd suggest criteria such as:

1. The character shouldn't have enough quotes for a quote page already.
2. The quote must be relevant to the character in every episode the character is present.
3. The quote must not excess two lines on the page.

Those are the main factors that i'd like to see in them. Admittedly I came up with them after only a few minutes of thinking, but I think that any quotes that follow these guidlines (with amendment if necessary) could make some articles more interesting. Flame Prince Finn 00:41, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think quotes at the top of pages defining characters should be exclusive, I think all characters should have them. felinoel 01:50, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to have them on every character, but with Finn or Jake how is it going to be decided which quote of all of them is best? Flame Prince Finn 02:54, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

This is what the quote pages and actual character article is for. We don't need those quotes. Sky Monster 02:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Finn is easy, "I'll slay anything that's evil, that's my deal!" but Jake idk... oh and a good one for Merceline is, "She's a radical dame who likes to play games!" but maybe not. felinoel 04:59, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly that's a good one for Finn, but you see my point that characters with a lot of quotes could be difficult to agree on? At any rate, if we're talking specifically about necessity I agree they aren't needed, but a meaningful snippet can only serve as an interesting introduction as far as I'm concerned. I think it's nice to not have to go to a quote page to find the (hopefully agreeable) single most valuable thing a character has said about themself. Flame Prince Finn 20:39, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Quotes at the top of the page are for describing the character, not just for being a random quote. felinoel 21:09, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Quotes pagesEdit

See Talk:Cosmic_Owl/Quotes for the start of this discussion. How many quotes are needed before it gets split into its own page?--Cornprone 00:28, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think more than 5 should be enough to have their own page. Less than 5 would be useless and redundant. Sky Monster 00:39, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more than 2 or maybe more than 3? We'll see if anybody else has opinions about the number. --Cornprone 06:53, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I believe this was discussed before and that the general consensus before was 3, but I can see having four quotes on a character's page being something that wouldn't break it too much, and then when they have five quotes they get their own page... felinoel ~ (Talk) 12:52, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think I have a better idea. Why don't we make quote pages for characters that where the main characters of an episode? That would make more sense, since the quote pages for minor characters are too short, along with their actual character page. Major characters usually have a lot of quotes, so they would need their own quote page, since their character page would already be too big, right? Also, reccuring characters should also have their own quote page, too. So, to shorten what I said, I mean that characters like the Magic Man and Dr. Ice Cream should have their own quote page, while a character like the Stump shouldn't. Sky Monster 02:19, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

I wish, but in order for that to work people would have to stop posting everything someone says instead of just the notable things they say which is what quotes are for... felinoel 12:47, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

We could easily delete them, right? Not a lot of people actually edit quote pages. Sky Monster 22:09, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yes we could, but... should we? Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter to limiting quotes to just things that are relatively iconic? Then for characters like Rock who has a few quotes just the most iconic quote of his would be used and perhaps even used at the top of the article so for Rock, "Hey I'm alive!" would likely go at the top of the article, the quotes section would be removed, and the quote article for the character would be deleted. Thoughts? felinoel 02:07, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

About the quotes at the top of character pages... we decided to get rid of them (sort of). Maybe we make rename the quotes section "iconic quotes" or even make a "quotes heading" template for each quotes page, like the one for the gallery pages, where it explains that only iconic quotes should be written? Sky Monster 02:32, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oh oops I misread it then... felinoel 03:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Here, I made a header for quote pages (change as you like) if you do want us to start cleaning up and policing quote pages. felinoel 13:37, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

OK, cool. I might want to change its appearance somewhat so it looks less like our maintenance tags. --Cornprone 13:48, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, though on a few wikias they have these as headers for every talk page. felinoel 13:51, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

I changed its style to look more like the gallery page header and added a line. Feel free to keep adjusting it if you can make it look better. --Cornprone 14:07, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Just got an email about the change lol, I like it, so should we start policing quote pages then? Once a page gets down to three or less votes delete the page and move the quotes to the main article, right? felinoel 14:12, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that plan sounds good to me. I might not be eager to jump into more policing personally at the moment, but go ahead. --Cornprone 14:20, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Quote pages are one of the very few pages I don't get emails about edits, once I set that up for those too I should be able to handle policing after the initial cleaning. felinoel 14:56, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

I need a permission to make an article about Clarence's quotes. He has, in my thinking, the best quote ever: My life is like a fart.Afliador8 00:59, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oh... was that supposed to be a funny line? I never understood it...

How many quotes does he have? The general consensus has been if there are more than three notable quotes then its gets an article, though I just now added the word notable to the general consensus. felinoel 01:51, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Potential Code of Conduct ContentEdit

Curse words and ignoring admins are abundant here, I just saw a blog response where someone called someone else a fat rat's scat, while humorous really shouldn't be done here. What are thoughts for potential content for a future Code of Conduct here?

• No foul language directed at someone (a definition of foul would be needed)
• No excessive use of foul language (already a rule, can be implemented in the CoC)
• If an admin tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it
• Talk pages are to be used for only about improving the article itself
• (add more here) (See below for updated CoC list)

felinoel 17:50, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily consider swearing a serious violation unless it's pretty extreme. That's a judgment call. Maybe we should crack down on that more. However, if name-calling is directed at another user, I consider that to be worse and will issue warnings against it. --Cornprone 13:39, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Will alter it then, this is why I put a definition of foul is needed. Limiting it to name-calling makes sense since Natasha swore and is being directly quoting while swearing on the Rainicorns page. How does the change I made above sound? felinoel 13:44, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, "excessive" use of foul language (even if not part of name-calling) is actually already a violation of our current written rules. I just haven't enforced that, yet, but it could be part of the code of conduct. Also, I want "trolling" added to the list of conduct violations, with "trolling" defined as "anything done for the purpose of provoking angry or negative reactions from others." I've let those kinds of things go on for too long because I didn't want to police what goes on in user blogs and chat. But now I realize that if we allow user blogs to be part of the wiki, then we ought to be responsible for preventing the level of discussion from being dragged down into the mud. This wiki is for people who want to gather and share information about the show -- not some random message board. --Cornprone 14:22, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I dread coming here to see blogs by users because there is so much negativity.

Opinions, debates, and some arguments I can understand. But the blogs are just full of 'trolling', even the images uploaded by some are just used to troll and cause anger. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 14:43, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Not only that but some of those pictures are uploaded here and then only used once, while they mostly are just uploaded here to incite anger. felinoel 11:51, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Right, you're talking about image macros, those pictures some people use instead of writing a message. I dislike them, but should we officially ban them? Anyway, let me have a try at rewording/expanding what's written in the code of conduct:

Let me know what you think. (The thing about talk pages I agree with, but it should be added to our manual of style instead, since it deals with page format.) --Cornprone 23:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of image macros, idk if we should ban them per se... maybe require them to remove them after short while after if they aren't in use or even I guess we could leave that to the potential FFF team...

I altered the wording tiny bit and added an oxford comma in your list, so I like how this sounds now... though should the last one be changed from admin to moderator? We can then define that further and put that mods can only do this in chat or something like that? felinoel 23:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, chat moderators have authority over chat. Admins have authority on the whole wiki. If that needs to be clarified, we could note it somewhere. --Cornprone 01:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in these? felinoel 11:59, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Here, I made a conduct banner to use for those conducting in a manner against the code.

Politely trolling people is still allowed, I hope? For without trolls the wiki-expierence would fall back greatly. The glorious First Consul of Rome 18:59, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

why!? why does everyone love trolls so freaking much!?

"Fear the Demon " 19:01, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

"Politely trolling" is an oxymoron, though it would appear that it could be, to a certain extent. felinoel 19:01, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

It's either trolling or it isn't. And if it is, it would be a violation of this code of conduct, if we implement it. I added another point to the proposed code, saying that encouraging or supporting vandalism on any wiki is not allowed. felinoel, the template looks pretty good, although I'd rewrite some of the awkward grammar in the second sentence. Anyway, I'd like to push this code of conduct forward, so if anybody has further changes, additions or arguments, post them here. --Cornprone 09:01, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

With the above definition of trolling, yes any form of trolling won't be allowed, huzzah. Did you already rewrite it? If you feel it is good enough then it should be made into an article now, we can continue editing it after anyways just in case. Also what should the punishment be for breaking these? I assume minimal until several offenses have been reached, I've mentioned before (elsewhere) that we should have a page for those who get banned (temp or perm) so we can keep track of it, it would also list when someone's ban gets lifted (since the chat mods can't set a timer on a ban). This way we could keep track of how many offenses someone's accrued. felinoel 12:53, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, regarding punishment, violating the code of conduct would be the same as violating any other rules. It would be up the admins to determine the severity of the violation and respond accordingly. I wanted to propose a rewrite of a section of the rules page to explain everything more clearly. I'll do so on this page in the section below. --Cornprone 04:01, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

That lack of consistency though is my issue, where one admin may block a user for three days for breaking a certain rule, another may block that same user for that same rule for two months. felinoel 12:51, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

I added a couple of things that might be important (in the gray box above). First, I want to ban images with offensive language on them. Reasons are stated above. Second, I also added a rule about impersonating or slandering others. Also, I added a "safety and privacy" section which contains not rules, but some advice. Let me know if you agree or disagree with any of the above. --Cornprone 07:13, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on stolen identities are posted here: "Stolen identity? Definitely worth IP blocking forever." felinoel 17:00, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's up at Adventure Time Wiki:Code of Conduct. Just because it's up, doesn't mean it can't still be revised, though. I encourage anyone with suggestions to post them here. --Cornprone 03:21, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Of course, and I will add it to the header navigation bar thingy. ƒelinoel. 12:35, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Rules page proposed rewriteEdit

Proposed rewrite of a section of Adventure_Time_Wiki:Rules#What_happens_if_I_break_the_rules? to explain how to deal with rule breakers more clearly. It basically codifies the rules we've already been using.

This is just a first draft. Thoughts? --Cornprone 04:01, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good imo. felinoel 12:47, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I like the warning system, but the disparity in "1 to 7 days" and multiple "weeks or months" is pretty big. Maybe short block should be 3 days, longer block should be 3 weeks? The rules in the above Code of Conduct though seem spot on, I'd definitely like to see them added. If the talk page suggestion felinoel had is listed in the manual of style, I also think it should be noted that you should read the manual before posting. Flame Prince Finn 01:07, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Haven't we always had a warning system? It is just that people stopped using the warning templates so lately I've been using them more lol.

As much as it pains me to realize, people don't read the manual of style. So I've just been telling people how they've been messing up instead of giving them warnings for it, if you want a place full of people ignoring the manual of style check out the voting for the featured articles for one, few seem to actually sign their votes for some reason... felinoel 01:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

If you guys want more granularity in block lengths, we could add an in-between amount. Originally, I left a lot of leeway for admins to use their judgment. When I'm blocking a vandal, I might choose anywhere from 2 days to infinity, depending on a lot of factors, like the quantity, content, and persistence of the vandalism, and whether it seems like there's any hope that the user could learn their lesson and come back as a legit contributor. --Cornprone 07:22, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm probaby just being nitpicky here. If all the admins are known to have good judgement then leaving flexibilty in block length is most practical. Like you said, there are a lot of factors. I don't have any complaints with the system above that are valid enough to slow down its implementation. Flame Prince Finn 20:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

OK, I revised what I wrote a little to try to provide more guidelines, while still allowing admins flexibility. Let me know if you agree with these guidelines. If no one objects, I'll integrate this into the official rules page soon. --Cornprone 14:31, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. f e l i n o e l . 15:21, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added this revised section to the rules page. --Cornprone 04:19, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Woo, now about the Code of Conduct, should it get its own page or should it be tacked below the Rules? ƒelinoel. 04:09, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking a separate page, as the rules page is already getting quite long, and it'd be easier to point users to the code if it was separate. --Cornprone 02:26, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

kay I will put it together tomorrow at work if you think that should be fine. ƒelinoel. 02:33, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working on it right now, because I said I'd finally implement it today. But feel free to revise the formatting if you think it needs any work. --Cornprone 02:49, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yea I saw where you said that like five minutes after I made this post. ƒelinoel. 12:34, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style clarificationsEdit

I think we need to clarify a few things on the Manual of Style... ƒelinoel. 15:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

The above is what is currently stated for Article Titles, I feel we should include how a name is determined for a character, like how we always go by the model sheets. Though a list of the order for what name is the 'official' name for a character, like say the lowest is speculation where we speculate the name of the character, followed by what is said in the show as a better name than just speculation, followed by what is said by the staff as a better name than just what is mentioned in the show, followed by what the model sheers as a better name than anything else. Or do we feel that model sheets are more accurate names than any other source? Like in the case of Lemon Horse, a staffer said they had no clue why that camel was marked as a horse when it is a camel. ƒelinoel. 15:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first part. However, if a character's name is unknown, I think it's okay to go with what it says on the character design sheets from federator blog. For the second part about plural titles, many pages work best, plural like Goblins--Tavisource 16:51, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Character design sheets are what I call them but this wiki seems to be leaning towards calling them model sheets now, so when I said model sheets I meant character designs sheets. ƒelinoel. 16:54, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually think that word directly from the Adventure Time staff should outrank the model sheets as long as more than one person calls it the same thing. Like the case of Lemon Horse, the model sheets can be "incorrect" for one reason or another. But that's just me. --Legendary Dark Knight 17:42, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree but our current standard is that the model sheet/character design sheet trumps all other sources for the name. ƒelinoel. 18:53, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that statements from the staff should overrule character design sheets, if they clearly and definitively make statements that contradict it. --Cornprone 00:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

http://www.formspring.me/skronked/q/243202805509136103

http://www.formspring.me/skronked/q/283772159581501587

What do you take from these statements then?

So then the order goes speculation, show, model sheet, then staff? ƒelinoel. 03:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. Of course, that's only if the statement from the staff is a clear, certain statement. In the case of the formspring links you posted, yes, the second one seems quite clear that the design sheet is named incorrectly. --Cornprone 20:06, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

How does this sound then? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:46, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oh and hey what should be done about these instances? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 03:57, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Right well someone is asking about the rules so I will update it with that since a while has passed... hope it is fine. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 14:56, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

What defines important enough? Over here Corn once set rules for what defines important enough and I feel this Manual should include this. ƒelinoel. 16:04, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I still agree what what I wrote on the page you linked to. Of course you'll want to add the part about background characters being merged into their species pages that you've been working on (Forum:Merged_articles). The rule for that I would guess would be that characters defined as "Background characters" (according to the category definition we're working on) can be merged into an article covering their species, if the same species has appeared more than once. This is similar to the group characters rule, except that this covers characters that did not necessarily appear together in a group. --Cornprone 00:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I see, just being sure that that hadn't gotten outdated since you said it so long ago. ƒelinoel. 03:17, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

How does this sound then? Edit as necessary. ƒelinoel. 13:51, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. --Cornprone 20:06, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well how about redefining the rules for Species articles, for things like Slime People where we only know of one character of the species, should we make it so that Species articles are not made? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 17:13, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

While this is an interesting route to take on this matter, idk if we should go about it this way... thoughts? ƒelinoel. 16:04, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but unless you find the starter of the page spells it one way, and then a heavy contributor of the page does another, what then?

Having a consistent way of spelling works better overall (imo), the ATLA wiki's head admin is from the UK, I believe, and he even set the standard that since the shows origins are North American then the spelling should follow. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 18:21, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

That does sound like a good standard, plus it makes sense... ƒelinoel. 18:52, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

That particular paragraph was borrowed from the way other wikis handle it. However, since this show is also North American in origin, I'm okay with changing it. I don't think we've ever actually had a conflict over different regional spellings anyway. --Cornprone 00:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

So a rewriting is in order then? ƒelinoel. 03:31, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It could say something like: "For the purpose of maintaining consistency, and because the subject of this wiki originates from the United States, words on this wiki should conform to the spelling used in U.S. English. This applies only to main namespace pages, not talk or user pages. Although no user should be harassed or punished for using other regional spellings of words, editors are encouraged to conform text in articles to U.S. spelling." Is that OK? Feel free to revise it. --Cornprone 20:06, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

So... ƒelinoel. 03:31, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds fine with me, though I've never acctually noticed any one use the European spelling of anything before. --Legendary Dark Knight 16:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think I recall some but someone changed it to the US spelling and no war ensued, but it is best to be ready anyways. ƒelinoel. 16:10, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

TriviaEdit

Hey, I had some ideas for defining what trivia sections should contain. Here's a proposal of something to add to the manual of style.

Thoughts? Additions or subtractions? --Cornprone 07:48, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well idk about the talk page thing since doing that with mergings proved to be very ineffective as few people actually check a random page's talk page but I do like the idea, also I've noticed several different kinds of trivia subsections being implemented, maybe we should also add that here? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:25, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Chat RulesEdit

Okay, so we've finally gotten around to making a set of Rules specifically for the chat, which can currently be read here. So, two things. First, is this set of rules okay? Do we need to add anything at all? Secondly, should we just add it to the current CoC page, or should the Chat Rules get their own page? --Legendary Dark Knight 17:31, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned elsewhere that I think it should be a part of the CoC because the chat was the main reason for the CoC to come to be and plus we don't want to have too many articles to intimidate the handful of people who might actually try to read our rules. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 17:39, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

...Bump. --Legendary Dark Knight 23:01, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

idk if bumping works like that on this kind of forum... ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 00:05, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I was just trying to get it on the more recent part of the Wiki Activity page :P --Legendary Dark Knight 00:33, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

I think incorporating this into the current code of conduct would be fine, and probably most effective seeing as chat/blog/talkpage rules would be most well understood if they were defined by a single list of rules. The only thing is that some points overlap - spam, harsh language, and adult content are addressed by both sets. In addition, the "sentences that people can't understand" seems to be redundant of spamming in my opinion. The first point on the chat rules list is also very similar to "no trolling."

Furthermore, ASCII art, excessive caps, and excessive emoticons are far more problematic in a fast moving chat than they are in a blog space. I have no problem with adding that to the Code of Conduct anyway given that both things are inane, but I can definitely see where others might have a dissenting opinion about something that is so not-problematic in non-live features. I'm assuming people wouldn't take to it without a fight, so I would also be totally okay with having most of the proposed chat rules added to the Code of Conduct and those three specifically added as "additional chat conduct," or something similar. Flame Prince Finn 02:43, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, I seem to have changed my mind over the weekend... I'm okay with the chat rules being on the same page as the CoC now... --Legendary Dark Knight 03:30, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

I see, so now let's decide on what the rules should be, the linked to ones are as follows... ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:27, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

lol they were added, so I guess that means no one has any problems with it as is? Oh well, if anyone does end up having any, note that this would be the place to discuss it. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:26, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Currently the rules there say this, I think it should say this...

Thoughts? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 18:44, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Chat emotesEdit

On the forum post here, we have clearly come to a general agreement that emotes need to be cleaned up.

Should users have emotes, and if so based on what criteria?

Should there be non-Adventure Time emotes?

I personally think removing all non-AT styled emotes is the best course of action. I think users that reach a certain edit count (regardless of what type of edit) and amount of time on the wiki should be allowed to have an emote, and I would suggest that limit at 100 edits and one month of being on the wiki. The emote would then be submitted to admins for approval based on whether it will resize well, is acceptably AT styled, and is appropriate in all other necessary ways. In addition, each user could only have one emote that can be changed only after a month. It is not the obligation of admins to put in the emote because it is requested; it will be implemented at leisure.

This would mean the removal of all default, pokemon, irrelevant, and user emotes - except for Marcaline's emote, BLAUGHUM's emote, Katari's emote, and a few others that are already AT styled and meet other requirements. FlippenAwesomeFinn's emote would be an example of a non-AT styled emote by my considerations. I'll link the emote page for reference.

In addition, I think emote input needs to be clearer and the emotes on the page need to be more organized. I would suggest all emotes have no spaces and using multiple inputs only for characters with multiple formal titles (pb, princessbubblegum). Characters that appear in multiple emotes should be done numerically (marceline, marceline2). Finally, emotes with characters should be next to one another. LSP1 and LSP2 would go sequentially on the list.

Once we address what parts of this are going to be contested and what is agreed on, we can begin voting with the voting templates if necessary. Flame Prince Finn 02:00, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with FPF in every way. Yours always, DoomyWoo <3 01:19, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

My agreement will also lie with FPF True Sephiroth 01:24, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything FPF said Vampire Queen of Ooo 01:43, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

idk I mean you apparently get edit counts when you respond to blogs and whatnot... ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:48, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I realize, and I don't see a problem with that. Chat is an equally unimportant part of the wiki, after all. I'd rather the system be suited to users who are consistently active on the wiki than have them fit a system similar to badges, too. If people had to do mainspace edits to get an emote and wanted one, we may wind up with low quality edits in the mainspace. Flame Prince Finn 21:01, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that is why we got rid of badges. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:22, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

^I'm glad we did.

Corruption 12:26, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

And see, this is why I made the topic in the first place, most people agree that the amount of random emotes is a little too much, I still feel the same way as I did in my post, that the emotes need to be cleaned up, and the re-wording by FPF has made it a lot more organized and easy to understand and I completely agree, Even if my emote wasn't an example within the system, I'd still feel the same way. Katari12 Talk Contrib 00:49, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and cleaned up the emote page. As for future policy, we still need to decide

• number of inputs per emote
• size restrictions on mediawiki page?
• and are we all in agreement 100 edits on any namespace is fine?

Flame Prince Finn 22:28, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I still think that users shouldn't have their own emote. But, when everybody else disagrees with me, 100 would be fine. SaberSworn 03:35, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Code of Conduct swearing rule proposalEdit

I’d like to suggest a change to the Code of Conduct. Currently, the CoC denotes the extent of the use of swearing as “No excessive use of adult language.”

First, ‘‘excessive’’ is vague and will probably be interpreted in vastly different ways according to different people. Considering that this is a PG site for a PG show, I do not see why swearing should be allowed at all. There are perfectly acceptable, less malicious substitutes for swear words. If we want to keep this site PG, there’s no reason why we should allow swearing. It doesn’t add much to conversations; in fact, it tends to be the kindling for arguments.

Second, swearing is completely outlawed in chat and in images, so why should it not be prohibited in blogs and such? There shouldn’t be inconsistencies like that.

Ultimately, I believe that swearing should not be allowed, as opposed to the current vague rule we use right now. SaberSworn 03:49, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this for pretty much the exact same reasons. Flame Prince Finn 04:01, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Where is the cutoff for "swearing"? Is "crap" or "damn" acceptable? EvergreenFir 04:45, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think that the policy "If you have to ask, don't say it." policy would be fine. Crap seems obviously okay to me though. Flame Prince Finn 06:21, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I've spoken with Corn about the vagueness of the rules before and his general assessment is that it is up to the admin as to whether or not it breaks the rule. Saying crap and damn once or twice is fine imo, but saying it every other word is excessive imo. If you want the swearing to stop though you can tell them to stop and if they continue then they break the last rule just before it talks about Privacy. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 14:13, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

My view is that excessive cussing belongs nowhere, and cussing in moderation doesn't belong in certain places. A wiki for a PG show is the latter case, in my opinion. What is the benefit of allowing it? Flame Prince Finn 02:05, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

The world has changed, cursing has become the norm, babies have their first words being curse words even. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:34, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just because people do it doesn't mean they should, and, by extension, doesn't mean we should allow it. Once again, what is the benefit of allowing it? SaberSworn 22:16, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

The benefit would be keeping up with the current norm, the changing times. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:39, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I feel like cussing is still regarded as informal and vulgar most of the time. I imagine teenagers have inserted less-than-accepted language into their vocabulary for a long time. I note that Adventure Time isn't keeping up with the times. :p Flame Prince Finn 01:10, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an insufficient justification. IMO, any swearing is excessive, so I suppose I could just interpret it that way. SaberSworn 01:24, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

@Flam, in Japan there is an informal language and a formal language of Japanese, they are actually two different languages. We in America might be developing such a thing as that.

@Sabe, according to what Corn has told me, that is an acceptable interpretation.

ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:17, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Trivia ImagesEdit

I suggest that we add pictures in trivia so that people can much more understand the given trivia, through pictures we are able to percieve and understand more of what is stated. Like this.

I Eat Shades of Red 16:50, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Title card triviaEdit

Okay, Sky Monster recently stated that there should be no title card trivia, but some trivia's are really acceptable even though they are title card trivias, I would like to ask if there is any source of this "no title card trivia." I don't see it in the rules or anything and also he doesn't make the rules. :|

Sincerely,      PAUL  ★     It is not enough to succeed, others must fail.            02:46, June 20, 2013 (UTC) 11:50, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember this being a rule anywhere..? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 17:53, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

"No title card trivia" must mean "No information about obvious or unnoticeable stuff on the title card." It's not a rule, but I think some people (including myself) are strict about it because people can examine the title cards for themselves. I mean, it's right there on the page. I think the trivia section is for information that isn't that accessible or something the reader might not have known; the only ways I could see the unstated rule being nullified is if there's an episode connection/cultural reference/error on the card. —RootSword(talk) 18:34, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

99% of trivia about title cards are just descriptions of the title card image itself. For example, in the episode page for "The Lich" people put that Finn and Jake where in the center of the Lich's eyes. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out. There have been trivia entries about the title card which were genuinely trivia-esque, and I've personally left them there; however, I can't say for certain that nobody else removed them.

An example of good title card trivia would be on the "The Enchiridion!" page. It needs to be (at least mildly interesting) information that someone couldn't see for themselves just by looking at the image. Lailoken (Talk) 22:55, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

So the problem is not that there is info about the title card, the problem is that most of the info is worthless and needs to be cleaned up? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 15:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

.png filesEdit

I am suggesting that we add a rule stating: "Upload pictures in .png format. .jpg images are very grainy, rugged and low quality when resized."
Sincerely,      PAUL  ★     It is not enough to succeed, others must fail.            02:46, June 20, 2013 (UTC) 18:20, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

While it is a good idea, I will have to say no because no one would ever follow that rule.

We just have to continue marking those bad files with the {{image-quality}} tag and hope someone cleans it up. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 17:53, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

IDK if this is an Admin-Only place or not but what Blugo said is a great idea. We (MLP wikia) use png images all the time. If somepony keeps adding jpg files we warn them about it. If they don't listen we block them for a short time. It would be great if this wiki does the same. JBB, Ponies FTW 19:50, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

This is not exactly an admin-only place, no. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 19:59, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Signature musicEdit

As many of you have seen with my signature, I like musical signatures, but I do not like autoplaying musical signatures, especially when there are multiple autoplaying musical signatures, more so especially when I am getting to work in the morning and opening up my talk page and Pinkie Pie blares out of my speakers to laugh at your fears and they will go away.

Autoplaying should not be allowed in signatures. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 16:07, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Pailynut123Edit

oh i am so sorry—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pailynut123 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).