User:Toughpigs/Talk Archive 05

Archive of Toughpigs

Concerns about short time periods and voting vs. consensus
I have concerns about both the length of time for nominations/voting and the prohibition against continued discussion. I understand (quite well, from personal experience on other wikis :-) that you're probably in every few hours, and you want to see quick results. However, for whatever reason, some contributors may only be able to visit once a day, or once every other day. This effectively excludes them from participating in such activities, or from thinking about it for more than a minute or so if they do try to. We saw an example of this just a few hours ago when a contributor felt rushed into contributing and was therefore not able to submit the option they eventually felt was superior.

Voting is evil, too, especially when the vote is all you have, because people are going to want to say more than "yes" or "no" and if they can't, they're probably going to be unhappy with the result (right now they can't even say "I like both of these", which is a perfectly reasonable point of view). Ultimately consensus makes the best pages - I think this vote will force people to choose between three options that vary in various ways, none of which they think is ideal.

Obviously, this is how things are for this vote, and it's important to see how well it works before judging it. However, I would suggest asking people afterwards how they felt about the process and what they would like to change, if anything. And yes, I might have brought these concerns up during the discussion about voting, but I was busy at work and did not have the time to look in, which really just goes to show the point. :-) --Laurence -- 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I understand what you're saying. As it says on the Vote page, we're trying out a new system, and we'll see how it works.


 * I agree that it's important to get everybody as involved as possible in the decision-making process. We don't want to have decisions made in a way that feels unfair, and that makes people resentful. Personally, I think having clear guidelines about voting helps with that.


 * You said "Voting is evil, too, especially when the vote is all you have..." I'm not sure what you're trying to link to -- there isn't a page on Wikipedia with that name -- but I get the gist of what you're saying. In this case, the vote isn't all we have, not by a long shot. We've been discussing the issue for about two weeks, and it's been a fairly lively discussion. Between the conversations on Talk:Main Page, Current events, the first vote and Talk:Muppet Wiki Vote Page policy, there's been lots of opportunities for people to say what they think.


 * I don't know if you've read the Vote Page policy yet, but it actually talks about this very question. That's why we want to have at least a two thirds majority to close the vote -- if we don't, it goes back to discussion, so that everybody can talk about it some more. The vote is really just a way to count heads after there's already been a lot of discussion, to make sure that what "feels" like an agreement really is one.


 * We might extend the voting period beyond 24 hours; we're going to see how this one goes. I agree that it sways things in favor of the people who are here more often, but that might not be such a bad thing. People who are here every day have more of a stake in the decisions than people who come once a week. But the number of hours is something we can talk about, and figure out.


 * In general, I think the concept of "consensus" is very much misused. It's very easy in a "consensus-building" discussion for the loudest, most aggressive people to dominate. After a while, the quieter people just back down, and the loud people claim it as a victory of consensus-building. What we're trying to do is have a lot of opportunities for discussion, and then make a group decision in a way that's visible and fair.


 * I'm not sure Wikipedia is a great example for how to handle these kinds of situations. Wikipedia is fantastic in a lot of ways, but I think their decision-making structure is weak. They're having a lot of trouble right now dealing with a large, rowdy contributor base, and I think they would be better off if they established more of a clear structure for how things work. In my opinion, the Wikipedia community values anonymity and anarchy too highly, which is why I stopped being an active contributor there.


 * If you're interested in this stuff, you should check out an essay called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness". I read it about five years ago when I was doing some group work, and it really helped me figure out how groups work effectively. "Consensus" isn't all it's cracked up to be. -- Danny Toughpigs 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For that matter, how does voting work in real life? The polls are open for a limited time, and for the candidates, you *do* often wind up choosing someone as the "least of all evils." I think so far, this vote is much fairer than that. For me, I could live with either the off-white or the four color, but I voted for off-white since nobody has yet voted for four color, and I *hate* the way that purple looks in the main box in the two color version. If it comes up for discussion again, I actually like Peter's template as well (and really, that's a concern not with the voting process but with the specific thing we're voting on, page design, though I know a few of us several times tried to encourage folks to experiment early with alternatives, as fiddling with the colors and templates takes longer than simply approving a process or deciding what's considered a Muppet or a Creature). And much as I love the Wiki, if a page design is approved that doesn't cause me to utterly swoon with joy and clasp the hands to the bosom in the throes of unbridled emotion as proof that God's in his heaven and all is right with the world, it won't kill me (which is also why I think much of the discussion focused on which colors or design elements people utterly hated, rather than what they loved). --Andrew, Aleal 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. I just looked at Wikipedia's guideline about consensus, and in my opinion, it leaves something to be desired.


 * "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin."


 * The page resists setting any specific boundary for how you know when consensus is reached or not. There can be lots of discussion, and even a straw poll, but ultimately, it's up to an admin to make the decision. That's a perfect example of the "tyranny of structurelessness". Everybody gets to discuss things, but when it comes time to make a decision, it's up to the unelected leader to decide.


 * Now, in the vast majority of cases, I'd expect that the admins involved make the correct decisions -- but using that as a guideline for your decision-making process opens things up to whimsical and arbitrary decisions. Laurence, if you're concerned about people feeling shut out of a potentially unfair decision-making process, then you should go have a word with the folks at Wikipedia. -- Danny Toughpigs 21:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is the link Lawrence was getting at: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Voting is evil. It does make a good point about not going to a vote at the drop of a hat. -- Scott Scarecroe 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One alternative for future voting, though I'm a bit leery of it myself but I also know I would have used it if I'd had the chance, is that the vote itself can be accompanied by a brief explanation of why one voted that way. Much of that perhaps could or should have come out in discussion, it could lengthen the page, and it might strike some as pressure to justify when they simply *want* to say yay or nay. But it's a thought, especially re the "I like both of these" (though like I said, if I like both, I'll vote for the one with the most votes so far, to keep the one I hate from getting an edge). --Andrew, Aleal 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, it just occurred to me that this whole process started when Laurence redesigned the Main Page for us. No discussion, no consensus, no nominations, no vote. He came in, didn't like the page, and took it upon himself to redesign it, with this edit summary: "I've made a few... changes. I think the front page looks nicer now. Colours etc. all configurable, just tried to do something that looks nice while preserving current layout." We'd never even seen him before that; it was his very first edit.


 * So it seems a little disingenuous at this point to say that we're not doing enough to build consensus on this issue. It makes me think that he's adopting the "voting is evil" principle because he's afraid that his design won't win. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, that was it. Sorry, I should have remembered that you have to double the Wikipedia: at the front for internal Wikipedia metapages. :-) -- 22:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. And I thought it was better, and still do, given that most of the current designs are in fact pretty close to the original changes. I kinda expected people to edit it from that point if they didn't like it, just like other pages. As it happened, the muppet community decided it needed to discuss it instead. -- 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the choice of admins is one situation in which leaders are elected at Wikipedia. There is a clear requests and voting process for them, and most pass with almost unanimous support (you can also see examples of the "short comments" people get to make explaining their vote, which are usually far more revealing than the vote itself). It also allows admins to be flexible about things if a more appropriate solution would be to do something else. For example, if the people were split on something and there was a middle ground that was acceptable to everyone they might decide to implement that, even if it had not been voiced as an opinion at the time. Of course, they would probably try voicing it first - their ultimate goal is to guide towards a point of consensus as much as to implement it. -- Laurence -- 22:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you think that. As I previously stated, I was prompted to comment by the fact that Pantalones had been unable to submit the version that he really wanted. I think that my design is the best of the current choices, but if others don't, that's fine with me.


 * However, I do strongly dislike the idea that they might choose mine because they don't like the other two on offer, when they would have actually preferred to do their own (just didn't have the time or know about the nomination). There was quite a lot of discussion before that, but when it came donwn to it, there were just 24 hours for people to make a (single) nomination. If the versions that had been in the previous discussion were automatically included, that might have been different, but they weren't, and it was far too easy for people to be left behind with just a day's window to submit.


 * I have used voting myself to decide issues, and even though there was only one issue there and we had pages of discussion and two days of voting I didn't leave enough time for people to all have their say. Laurence -- 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that admins make very good decisions... probably. The problem is that admins are people, and sometimes people are selfish or short-sighted.


 * That example that you just gave is awful. The admin might decide on a middle ground that hadn't been voiced yet? And they would "probably" try voicing it first? That's not consensus at all, it's oligarchy. The people are squabbling, and the wise admins come down from above, to bring forth a brilliant solution that hadn't occurred to anyone else. That sounds like a system that the "wise admins" are very invested in maintaining, so it's self-perpetuating.


 * Also, if the admins usually pass with unanimous support, then that tells you that the system is rigged in favor of the proposed admins. People in dictatorships get elected with 100% of the vote. Everybody else has to work a little harder to win an election.


 * Personally, I've seen some Wikipedia admins that I think are hotheads, and I've seen a few that are completely clueless. The more that I talk to you, the less impressed I am with Wikipedia admins.


 * Seriously, go read "Tyranny of Structurelessness". You keep using the word "consensus". I do not think it means what you think it means. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, stop adding your replies in the middle of other people's text. I know they do that on other wikis, but it's confusing. Talk like a person, in chronological order. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus, there were weeks ahead for people to devise an alternative. I do think it's a shame that Peter's latest revision couldn't be included because he'd used up his option (as had I), but again, I think it's really just a problem with creating templates *not* with the voting process. Plus, the longer we waited for discussion, it kept just being pushed down. Plus all of those who check regularly, and just about everyone who has a vested interest in Muppet Wiki and its organization does check at least every other day, knew the deadlines. I'm trying to think if a compromise could have/still could be reached re the one-color blue, and given the small voting turnout as of now, it's still very likely this could just return to discussion anyway, so the complaints are fairly moot. And Laurence, no offence, but part of the reason we're a bit unsure about your quibbles is that, well, you really haven't done anything on Muppet Wiki outside of this discussion (or if you have, I've missed it). Way back, I briefly popped in to your Furry Wiki, signed in and all, to correct some errors on a page. I haven't been back since, but I also haven't tried to argue that things need changing. Users like Peter and Warrick have suggested main page suggestions that have nothing to do with colors or shortening text, but on adding elements (like permanent links to Images Wanted and Name That Puppet) or a voting process for the main page picture that are directly related to the purposes of this Wiki, allowing more users to be aware of these things and do more to add correct Muppet info or supply useful screengrabs and scans for reference. I'm not saying you have to contribute or otherwise be involved in the community to have a say in these issues. However, knowing what projects are going on, many which are often more important to users than what the main page looks like, or even getting to know the users themselves as people and not just as Username:Blank, basically being a part of the community and not an outside observer who only pops in now and then to debate organizational issues, this sort of thing helps. --Andrew, Aleal 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's something that Laurence hasn't realized yet: "Pantalones" is Peter. Peter is one of the admins here. He's been involved in all of the discussions about the Main Page, from the very beginning. If you look at any of the discussion pages, you'll see that he created most of the options that we've been discussing himself. He was involved in the Vote Page policy, and the decision to bring this issue to a vote. He's one of the five people who have been discussing this issue for the last eleven days.


 * Peter knew the rules, and he was totally in on the process. For some chuckle-headed reason, he decided to mess around with more color options, and he came up with something that he liked 45 minutes before the nomination period ended. He groused about it in a joking way, but he's okay. Peter has not been disenfranchised.


 * You're complaining about how we do things, when you don't actually know who the people are and what's been going on. You're talking like you know how to take care of this community better than we do, like you care more about the people here than we do. You don't even know us.


 * I've had two conversations in the last week with Wikipedia admins who think they can come in here and preach "consensus" to us, when really what you want to do is tell us how to run things. (See Talk:Muppet Wiki User Name policy for the other one.) It's hypocritical and mean, and I have no patience for it. -- Danny Toughpigs 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone! It's me, Peter.  First of all, you should know that if you're going to make assumptions based on the things you read other people's talk pages, that you're pretty likely to make a fool of yourself.  Oh, I know, it's tres wiki and I do it, too.  But it's rarely, if ever, the whole story.


 * Re: Main Page 1 color blue, I created the page because I noticed that I really liked the blue that we've been using in the talk boxes.  It's pretty neutral but just colorful enough, in my taste.  Anyway, my point when I posted on Danny's talk page was that it was ironic that I was the one who suggested we limit each user to one nomination per vote, because here I was wanting to nominate two.  Hell, I did more than suggest it, I fought kind of hard for it.  Anyway, I probably shouldn't have posted to Warrick about it with only minutes left in the vote, but I did.  Whatever.  I actually don't care that much.  If the policy needs changing after this vote, we'll change it.  And if I've been disenfranchised at all, it's only because I've disenfranchised myself.


 * What's really frustrating about this is that we probably didn't need a vote in the first place. If Danny or Scott or Andrew or Brad or Guillermo or Dean or Nate or Jog or any one of a long list of regular contributors decided to alter the front page a bit, I would have been fine with that.  Sure, I may have disagreed, but I'd have respected their ideas because I respect their contributions.  But instead, what happened was that Laurence came in and said that my wiki wasn't good-looking enough.  "Who's Laurence?" I asked myself.  Only some guy who has made no substantive contribution to my wiki.  Ever.  Is there really more to say? -- Peter Pantalones


 * Danny, I don't see it that way. If you see a better solution that combines two existing solutions and is better than both, why not implement that rather than adopting one of two options which will definitely displease some people? If you judge correctly then it will be adopted, either by default or in modified form (and in that case, faster, because you did the hard work of implementing it). If people don't like it, they will tell you, and you've lost nothing, because it's so easy to change things. The process is not as important as the end result, and the end result - which could pessimistically be viewed as the version which everyone dislikes least - is usually reached faster by direct editing than by voting between alternatives.


 * Maybe Wikipedia is an oligarchy (I note that it comes up as the first result for that term :-), but in that case it is not the admins that are in charge, but those who make the most edits. These may not be the best editors for any particular definition of "best", but they are likely at least to be the most experienced editors. This is one reason why many user's critera for adminship include a minimum number of edits.


 * I should have been clearer: most Wikipedia admins who are elected get near-unanimous support. There are few contentious but ultimately successful elections. Those who don't look like succeeding - usually because people come along to complain that they've been stupid or short-sighted in the past - tend to withdraw ther nominations rather than have a failed attempt on their record. People sometimes drop out of political elections for the same reason - it may be more common in Wikipedia adminship requests than elsewhere, but that's likely to be due to the higher bar to entry into an political election.


 * The only structure is that which is accepted by the editors who make the most edits. Ultimately, if Wikipedia's way is bad, why have they managed to succeed in creating what they have? At their root, wikis are inherently resistant to structure, because anyone can edit any page. "Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures," as suggested by the essay, seems somewhat opposed to this. While Wikipedia and other wikis do have elected admins, they are there only because some proportion of good editors has to have the power to actually delete things. They would never be able to do their job if it were not for the far larger number of people who help them. Eight hundred people (of which maybe half are around regularly) cannot police a million articles on their own. But this is rather irrelevant to voting, other than to point out that it would be very hard for an admin to actually do something bad and not get called on it, if only by the 399 other admins out there. :-)


 * *reads latest entries* - Ah. Well, yes, I think that that policy on banning those users is a bad idea as well. I remember saying exactly that to you when you came in to discuss it in IRC, and the general opinion was that it was probably not a good idea. So you did it anyway, and now you have Wikia staff (including the founder of both Wikia and Wikipedia) saying in the nicest of way that you probably shouldn't be doing it. You believe that you know better, and they ultimately respect that.


 * As you've guessed by now, I also think that I know better, and have tried to convince both you and the rest of the community of that. It is the community's choice - that is, the choice of those who do the most editing here. When it comes down to it, as you say, I'm not one of them. The simple reason for this is that I'm not really that interested in the topic, other than having some Fraggle Rock DVDs. I am interested in building up other wikicities, though, so I tried to contribute in the area that I had the most ability to do so and which seemed to be lacking here. Peter, this was my substantive contribution - the only one I felt I was both qualified and interested enough to make.


 * That is also the root with my disagreement with your blocking policy - I think that it turns a certain proportion of people away unnecessarily and makes the place less successful than it could otherwise be. I may be wrong, but I look at the other wikis that succeed while allowing people to continue editing anonymously and I find it hard to believe.


 * With all that said, I should go now, as it seems almost certain that we're just going to end up banging heads and wasting time if I stay, and the reason I decided to contribute here in the first place should be solved shortly. Ironically, the creation of a voting policy is probably more significant than the front page redesign, but it's nice to have that as well. I do wish you good luck and I hope that your decisions will turn out to be right for your community, because in the end that is what is most important. Laurence (another policy I disagree with :-) -- 00:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I see the conversation about the User Name policy in a different way. Once I'd posted about the rationale behind the policy, Jimbo said that I had a good point, and that he would think about it some more. It didn't turn around his whole philosophy or anything, but I think that's too much to ask from one conversation. I think we came to a very good conclusion to that.


 * If you want to judge how successful the system is, then yeah, look at the results. In less than three months, Muppet Wiki has 50 active contributors, and over 7600 pages. I think it's probably the #4 most active Wikicity, after Uncyclopedia, Star Wars and Star Trek. (Not bad company to be in.)


 * By way of comparison, Creatures Wiki has 2400 pages, and gets about 30 edits a day. WikiFur has 3200 pages, and less than 100 edits a day. So if you want to judge a system by the results, then sure, let's go.


 * Another nice thing about Muppet Wiki is that our admins don't show up on other people's wikis and try to tell them what to do. But that's just the way we're raised, I guess. We're different that way. -- Danny Toughpigs 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just realized that Uncyclopedia and Star Trek are "sister sites". So that means Muppet Wiki is the #2 most successful Wikicity, right after Star Wars. None of the others come close. Maybe the other Wikicities should look to us as a model for how to run their sites. -- Danny Toughpigs 12:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro text
Hi, Laurence: Well, as you can see, we've got a vote going about the Main Page redesign. I'm really glad that you brought it up -- I think we're going to end up with a better looking page. You definitely struck a chord with people about how plain the current page looks, and it's going to get changed.

I think you're striking out with the changes to the intro paragraph, though. You've talked about it a few times, and you're just not getting any traction on the idea. You brought it up a week ago on Talk:Main Page -- the only people who responded were me and Peter, and we didn't agree with you. Nobody else seems to be enthused about it. It seems like people are pretty satisfied with that text the way it is. -- Danny Toughpigs 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to have helped - I view the success and improvement of all wikicities as being an important goal. :-)


 * As for the text, you may well be right - we'll see! I think that the text I've used is clearer than the original, and that if it's something that is going to be read once and then ignored then it should be as short as possible to avoid wasting space for the rest of the page. I consider the FAQ (which can be as long as it likes) to be the true introduction - the intro text is essentially just there to make sure that they read that page.


 * If people do end up saying something like "I like the layout/colours, I just want different text" then I'm sure that would work out. Nothing need ever be final on a wiki! Laurence -- 20:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Me and My Stupid Ideas
Why'd you have to go and pressure me to nominate something right away? I just created Main Page 1 color blue (based off the talk box color), which I'm a bigger fan of than Main Page 1 color off-white, but I've gone ahead and used my turn up. Oh, irony.--Pantalones 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Book Club
Your forum needs a book club. Stat. Also, you never got the Bunny Picnic discussions up on your site. Don't think I didn't notice.--Pantalones 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Name That Puppet
Danny, Can you make the Name That Puppet page a main fixture on the main page? --Warrick 14:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a good idea. Images Wanted needs a home too. I'll try something, and see what people think. -- Danny Toughpigs 15:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, y'know what? Let me wait on that too until the redesign has been voted on. I don't want to mess with the Main Page while it's still an open question. Don't let me forget, though, okay? -- DannyToughpigs 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I definetely will not! A nice little box with the two in would be quaint --Warrick 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We could also think about putting it on the navigation bar on the left. "Things you can do" doesn't seem to be attracting much attention," so maybe we could put Images Wanted and Name That Puppet in its place... -- Danny Toughpigs 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese merchandise pictures
I have found pictures of some of the Japanese Sesame Street merchandise that I have posted. I was wondering if it is possible to post the pictures or not(found them on other sites). MasterYoshi 13:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead! It'll be great to see them. -- Danny Toughpigs 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Balls!
I laughed out loud at the new Characters Whose Names Sound a Bit Rude image. --Andrew, Aleal 02:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I might also point out that Elmo Has Two, but I don't want to rub it in. So to speak. -- Danny Toughpigs 02:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:150.148.0.27
Was it really necessary to block this user that quickly? All he tried to do was post a transcript of that 39 Stairs sketch, which isn't necesarily nonsense -- BradFraggle did it on the First and Last page and the 1839 page. I personally don't think transcripts are something that belong on a site like this, but going by this new set of rules we've been establishing, it seems a little unfair of you to block said anonymous user after that one harmless edit.--MuppetVJ 01:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a highly-trained spidey sense in these matters, which says that that person will be trouble. But I know that's hard for other people to trust, so I'll unblock him, and you can see for yourself. -- Danny Toughpigs 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for adding me to the Community Portal page. I'm having great fun so far. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'm glad you're here, and having fun. Here's a little Muppet Wiki tip, cause I know this is different on other wikis. Here, we put new talk messages at the top of the page, so people see the new message as soon as they come to the page. The wiki software doesn't agree with us, but the wiki software can be a chucklehead sometimes. So there you have it. -- Danny Toughpigs 17:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dammit ...
... you beat me to it! (undoing the work of the spammer that is)

... Good job. :)

--MuppetVJ 04:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I happened to hit Recent changes about two seconds after he vandalized the Main Page, so I hit rollback. The graffiti didn't even last a whole minute. I'm really mystified by wiki vandals; it's like the smallest amount of damage you could ever do to something. Why bother? -- Danny Toughpigs 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe Mathieu Cover Gallery
Like this! -- Scott Scarecroe 20:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that's lovely! We could make those for a whole buncha things. The really cool thing would be if we could make the picture into a link that takes you to the page, rather than to the image file. There are possibilities here. -- Danny Toughpigs 21:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just fixed that. Also, now that I've got dates and links to the books in there, I was thinking of using that to replace the list on his page. -- Scott Scarecroe 21:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I'm gonna go ahead and do that. Keeping track of two lists is a little silly. I'll keep a seperate section on his page for those that he co-illustrated, too. -- Scott Scarecroe 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's perfect! Yay! I love it. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind about the separate Gallery page. It doesn't update without purging the server cache, so fuck that. -- Scott Scarecroe 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider it fucked. -- Danny Toughpigs 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

user names in history
Hi, I signed up now as FellowTravelingMatt, and I'm wondering if I can re-title my previous edits under my current user name (137.45.77.56, plus an expansion earlier last week to Marlon Fraggle).

I would also like to ask how to do a certain edit: in the Sprocket article there's a grey box that says

Performer: Steve Whitmire

and I tried without success to make it into:

Performer: Steve Whitmire Karen Prell (assisting)

since Karen always did the back half. Basically I need to extend the box vertically and keep the next line inside of the box. Could you tell me how to do that? --User:FellowTravelingMatt 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there! It's nice to meet you; welcome to the wiki! Unfortunately, you can't reclaim previous edits, but now that you have a user ID, you can start building up your contributions list.


 * The thing you're asking about is the performer box; it's made from a template called Template:Performer. You can see the code at the top of the page: . There's another template for a box that lists two performers, called Template:Performer2. You can see that template in action on the Cookie Monster page, for example, where it looks like this:.


 * But you shouldn't change the box on Sprocket's page, because we don't include assistants and right hands in the performer box. There were consistent right hands for some characters, but not for others, and it's too much for us to try to keep track of. So for the most part, we just list the people who performed the voices.


 * Let me know if you have other questions. I'm glad you're here! -- Danny Toughpigs 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)