MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive20

Cartoon sections

This conversation was moved from User talk:Interrobang.

When did we start putting the japanese cartoon sections under the American cartoon sections? We agreed last year to seperate them for the sake of clarity (especially as the bloody G1 Prime article turned into a giant mish-mash of American and Japanese continuity intersecting because the continuity lines were not clearly defined). --FFN 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm... not. Jetfire's page has no other American continuity, so it's utterly pointless to give the cartoon and only the cartoon two section headings and split the Japanese stuff away. "Generation 1 cartoon continuity" is sensible for that page.

As an aside, "American continuity" is a fucking stupid concept, because, unlike the Japanese, our continuity isn't cohesive (or at least somewhat), with everybody making their own spinoffs on the cartoons that contradict other spinoffs; see Beast Wars. —Interrobang 02:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant not clearly defining the Japanese fiction is seperate from the US fiction. If you are unhappy with this, then you should have taken it to the community talk page like everybody else does when they want to question or change policy. Otherwise those of us who were doing it in the manner you don't like don't know what the hell is going on. --FFN 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not, though. I didn't realize this was a matter of contention, but it seems to me that since the Japanese G1 series began with the dubbed American 'toon, the subsequent anime and manga belong in the same continuity, just as much as the various BW series belong together because they all stem from the same show. The contradictions between the spinoffs and the differences in intended audiences haven't been barriers elsewhere. - Jackpot 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"I meant not clearly defining the Japanese fiction is seperate from the US fiction." But it isn't. Japanese continuity and the mass of Hasbro continuities (again, there isn't a cohesive American continuity) all use the Generation 1 cartoon as a springboard. —Interrobang 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that if you want to remove our earlier format, then you create a small note paragraph about how the Japanese continuity branches off and insert it where appropriate, like you did for the Jetfire page. I can't be bothered going back to change all the pages we modified.

Off topic: What the hell happened to this page? There's a gigantic white space at the bottom covering part of the Yu Gi Oh topic in there. --FFN 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with this issue is that sometimes it makes sense to do it, and sometimes, it's sort of pointless. Optimus Prime's page, for instance, was terrible before the American and Japanese cartoon continuities were spaced out - the cartoon sliced up into separate sections for each season with two different names in each header, information from one Japanese part of the section being contradicted in the next American part... it's something that just, generally speaking, reads better when you break it apart. "This all happened in America, and the following things happened at different times during that" versus "This happened in America! And this bit happened in Japan! But it can't have happened in the same continutiy as THIS bit from America, which was followed by ANOTHER bit from Japan, which CAN happen!" But wiiiith... let's say, the Combaticons. They appeared in the cartoon, and then they appeared in The Headmasters - there's no complication or confusion, the appearances just flow into one another, and it's ultimately a bit pointless to give Japanese continuity a whole separate continuity header for something that doesn't matter like that It can just be slotted in as the next sub-header and we can all go on with our lives.
Now, the thing is - and I think this is the root of the issue - a "Japanese continuity" section doesn't actually have to be a separate header to "Cartoon continuity" - it could be a whole sub-section under it. Mechanically speaking, this is perfect. It's an appropriate place to put it, keeping it and the continuity that it spring-boaded off of under the same section, but distinguishing it enough to make it easier to read instead of having to bounce back and forth between conutries. There is one simple, solitary reason I don't like that. Because I FUCKING HATE WITH AN UNEARTHLY PASSION THAT CANNOT BE NAMED OR EQUALLED the appearance of the resulting sub-headers - they're just ordinary-sized text, but bold. OBSERVE. Ugh ugh ugh UGHH. - Chris McFeely 10:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity headers don't nest.

These talk pages? They nest. You can do down-down-down several levels- and then hop back out and be on a different level of the hierarchy without any special header to declare it thus. Here's the problem, as I see it

==Generation 1 cartoon==

Optimus Priem Blah blah blah...

===Japanese Gumball comic===

Optimus Prime, Elita 1 hubba-hubba!

==Generation 1 cartoon==

Which was followed by the episode that led into.

...the above? Does not work. You can't 'redo' the same header multiple times. (I mean, you can, but it causes the page anchors ot break, as well as making the Table of Contents a giant mess.)

Within a certain continuity, we are telling a linear story of events that happened in chronological order, so the events pretty much have to be documented in the order they occurred- moving Scramble City to after The Return of Optimus Prime so you can do "All of Japanese continuity" in 1 block is structurally nice- but massively confusing to the reader.

The real problem here is that we want to burrow down a level when documenting scramble city, but to do that we need another header after Scramble City to hop 'back up' into American continuity- as so Optimus Prime's page (unlike anyone else's) is divided into seasons. That works great with things that actually take place between seasons- but we're still getting new things added to the G1 cartoon timeline- things that don't fit so neatly.

This thing people are trying to do with nested continuities- though a laudable goal- is something headers are fundamentally unsuited for.

And since when has Transformers continuity ever "nested" neatly? There's always weird loose-ends like Rebirth that prevent you from making Japan a "subset" of American continuity. Treating Transformers continuities like Matryoshka dolls is plain stupid when they actually behave like yellow-and-green-makeblue-seal zipping together. -Derik 10:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add another "root of the problem" declaration: The REAL root of the problem, in my estimation, is the way we often try to shoehorn everything together into an in-fiction chronological order when that doesn't actually exist. Especially with the more recent Japanese fiction, we've got retcons on top of retcons and time-travel out the wazoo. It's getting as bad as the BW spinoffs. That's why I've always advocated arranging series in real-world chronological order. I'll link again to my sectioning experiment because, well, it shows how that would play out. And I'll also mention Beast Wars (event), which I constructed with the same principle in mind. I even explain the logic in its notes and trivia: Since the various spinoffs all spinter away and loop around and whatnot, it's best to lead off with the first series, the foundation of all the rest, in one solid chunk. Then I put all the rest in the order in which they appeared, which gives the reader a much better sense of relevance and story-inspiration. Interrobang brought up Megatron (BW), which we both agree is a mess. I think the problems begin right at the start, where we lead off with an obscure Japanese toy-catalog, then pick our way through confliciting origin stories before arriving at the actual jumping-off point of all BW fiction, the cartoon. Then afterwards we still have to cover an endless stream of modern, retconny fiction (like Robot Masters) before we even get to BM. Reading through that leaves me more confused and unsure of how it all fits together than if it had been presented in real-world order, allowing me to see fictional backtracking for what it is. In past debates, the principle defense of in-fiction chronology I've seen is, "It's disorienting to jump around in time as you read from series to series." Well, I say the Megatron and Prime articles are exhibits A and B for how much MORE disorienting it is to rearrange a whole bunch of disparate, contradictory series into a supposed "real order" when they clearly do not work that way.

Edit: Oh, and to address specifically what Derik brought up, the Scramble City issue is resolved in my schema by focusing on the "one solid chunk" principle. If the seasons of the American 'toon together constitute a discrete "series" (which they do), then they should be presented under one header without interruption. If Scramble City is then under a subsequent header, I don't think the jump backwards in time is so "massively confusing" that it outweighs the confusion brought on by breaking everything into littler pieces and reshuffling them.

- Jackpot 18:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Deformers

Since there will be Yu-Gi-Oh! cards based off Transformers (known as Deformers), I was wondering about including them into the site. EHeroDarkNeos 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and vote no, since they don't sound to me like actual Transformers. We don't have pages for the Gobots characters and whatnot, after all. Jeep! 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured we should include them as their concept is similar to the Real Gear robots. And yes, there are Gobots pages EHeroDarkNeos 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought Yu-Gi-Oh! merchandise was produced by Bandai, and this is a Hasbro franchise. I wouldn't include it. (I do however think that Deformers would be an insult by a Geewunner for Animated, on an unrelated note.)Metal Gear NOIZE 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How would the CARDS be an insult to a Geewunner? Besides, the cards are made by KONAMI EHeroDarkNeos 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant that I envisioned that a Geewunner would reffer to Animated as Deformers, due to the art style. However, unless the Deformers in question are officialy involved in the Transformers brand in some way (Like a crossover), I wouldn't add it. G.I Joe characters have pages because of the crossovers that the comics have done, but until we see some sort of melding into each other's canon, I wouldn't have it.Metal Gear NOIZE 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are Gobots pages for those Gobots which have crossed over into or had cameos in Transformers fiction. We also have other pages for the Hudson Soft and Konami characters from DreamMix TV: World Fighters, but that's because they appeared in an officially licensed game that contained Transformers characters. Are you seeing the linkage here? These characters are listed because they were involved in actual official releases for the Transformers brand, and thus are appropriate for inclusion. Yu-Gi-Oh is right out.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean but why don't you go here just to see what I'm talking about. EHeroDarkNeos 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As Hasbro is fond of clarifying, Transformer != transforming robot.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. We don't have M.A.S.K. in here either. These have nothing to do with Transformers. --Thylacine 2000 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it really appropriate for, say, a Pokemon wiki to cover Digimon or Monster Rancher, in spite of any thematic similarities.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know why we're even having this dicussion in the first place. These Deformers don't even remotely look like anything from Transformers. Besides, why would we include pages for them on this site? This is the "Transformers Wiki", not the "Anything-That-Transforms-in-Any-Fiction wiki". The point is, those are Yu-Gi-Oh! monsters, whcih have abosolutely no connection to any Transformers fiction. Just because they can transform, doesn't mean they're "Transformers". Sabrblade 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC) ==Wave info?==Something we might want to start adding to toy entries... what "waves" the toys shipped in. Naturally, this will be easier for modern stuff. But I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at all to see "oh, Animated Jazz came out as part of Wave three, shipped through four and five". (I just made that 4/5 part up, but you get the idea). --M Sipher 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) == Teletraan logo ==Is it just me or is TF wiki's Monaco layout screwy when viewed in IE? The Teletraan logo in the upperlefthand corner gets covered by the searchbox and navigation bar. But when I view this page in Firefox, it's perfect, all right. I can see the logo. Isn't anyone the least bit concerned? --Destron Commander 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not wrong. Damnit- I REVIEWED the code in IE before we put it up. Has Wikia changed their behavior again? :p -75.168.120.209 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh- that was me. Not logged in on IE apparently. -Derik 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cite Your Sources" Template?

Pardon if I'm asking this in the wrong place or if I've overlooked something obvious, but...is there some sort of user message template that asks a user to cite sources for their news-type contributions? There are always some people who could stand to have the message burned into their scalps delivered to them.--Apcog 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, All we've got is a (rather skimpy) policy page underlining that we think being RIGHT as opposed to "how you vaguely remember" is important. -Derik 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that'll do for now, but something more pithy in the form of a message box might be worth considering.--Apcog 12:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

+/- number in watchlist

What is the +/- number in the watchlist? example: 11:34 Talk:Universe (2008 franchise) (diff; hist) . . (+290) . . SanityOrMadness—Starfield 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of characters added or deleted. (If I were feeling wittier right now, I'd make some sort of Furman joke.) - Jackpot 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== Henkei? ==Now do we list these to their respective character pages? I haven't seen them listed on here yet. After all they are different from the Hasbro classics releases and I think we should list them. So should we star listing them and if not, why not?Dead Metal 16:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They aren't ALL listed yet, but some are. See Bumblebee or Hot Rod for an example. --Sntint 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, I'll go and add some myself then.Dead Metal 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tech spec numbers, again

I'd brought this up a long time back... and if we're going to move and revamp, now seems like a good time to bring it up. It might be a good idea to find some way of adding the Tech Spec numbers to the toy listings... it feels kinda odd to not have them, since they are "hard" numbers. Perhaps a "base stats" template can be worked up? One that incorporates the name, type, release year, ID numbers, accessory listings, and the tech specs all in one simple, non-elaborate graphic block? --M Sipher 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be for it. I created something similar at Template:Attacktix which wouldn't be hard to adapt.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I care for the tech spec numbers either way, but I'm intrigued in the idea of inserting all of a toy's information into its unique visual area. Maybe something like a filecard, with the image of the toy on either side? —Interrobang 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd sooner keep the image separate if possible, for a few reasons... not the least of which being that the amount of info per toy varies wildly, not to mention the picture dimensions. --M Sipher 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

Hey guys, I'm Scott. As you know, the ads everywhere on the site have gone away for logged in users. The trade-off is that the front page will be getting a 300x250 box in the upper right hand corner to go along with the banner. I don't want Wikia to go out of business (I love free wikis too much!), so I've been going around to a bunch of wikis to help with that process. The 300x250 ad just for the front page will be turned on at some point this week, so to keep the front page from breaking, I've designed this update for you guys. What do you think? Ads will still be gone for logged-in users -- that's not changing (logged-in people will only see the front page ads, and that's it). I've been suggesting to wiki admins that they encourage their users to log in whenever they can so they don't see the ads. It's even possible to make login mandatory if you want. Anyway, I hope the ads being gone is cool with you guys. I just want to make sure that the front page looks okay with the new format; if they get turned on with the current layout, the front page will look crappy and I don't want that. Let me know what I can do to help! —Scott (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a slight improvement, but when I make edits and lay out a page, I'd like that layout to be seen by more than 5% of the site's viewers. And locking viewing to only registered people is likewise counter to our purposes. Technically, we are putting this wiki together FOR those people who just come to browse. It is anti-user friendly. --ItsWalky 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya, man. It's the best compromise we could get out of the deal. Personally, I'm just happy that I don't have to see the ads. I'll be putting up a sitenotice on some of my wikis encouraging people to log in rather than use adblock. In the meantime, is it okay if I migrate the mock-up? I know the change is coming soon, and I really don't want to see the front page break. I hope that's cool with you guys. Peace. —Scott (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... an unbroken main page... or wikia looking slightly more like a car on bricks in your front lawn...

• contemplates the relative benefits*

This could take awhile. -Derik 02:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The ads got turned on today for the front page, so I went ahead and moved some things so that the layout doesn't break. Ads are still gone for logged-in users on content pages. They only place you should see them if you're logged in is on the front page. I assume that layout is okay since no one objected to it on Monday, but of course feel free to do with it what you like. If you have any questions about the code, or if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Thanks guys! —Scott (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are objections. We just know that clearly, objections mean fuck-all, which is why we're doing that whole "leaving" thing, and Wikia can have a grand old time making their site more and more unreadable unimpeded by silly things like userbases. --M Sipher 17:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, it looks to me like | something went wrong. Is it just me?--Inevitable Betrayal 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Only checking your layout in Internet Explorer? Priceless.

• slow claps* And a jolly good job you did! Now the layout is broken in Safari and Firefox with or without adblock turned on. You have image blocking texts- and then ads pop up and block the text AND the image! That's like- a a fail so epic... it just might be a win!

But guess what it looks perfect it Internet Explorer! Yeah! *air guitar*

Tell me, do you all naturally suck this badly, or does Wikia give its people special training? -Derik 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:FortMax changed it back, so I think people are seeing different things. Can you clear your cache and check it again? —Scott (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? the reversion was your clue that people were seeing different things? Not two different screencaps of the broken layout? -Derik 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like they WANT us to leave. --ItsWalky 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Here are screenshots of the front page as they look in four major web browsers.

• 
  Firefox
• 
  Internet Explorer
• 
  Opera
• 
  Safari

Don't forget that you might have to clear your cache and disable AdBlock to see the front page properly. —Scott (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott, while it's nice that you're going to communities to help them cope with the ads, we didn't ask for this help, and you changing things around without consensus is aggravating an already strained relation with Wikia staff. The fact that you seem to be ignoring us saying "no, we don't want this," from an admin here no less, is more than a little tone-deaf.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rosicrucian. I'm sorry you feel that I'm ignoring you. I posted a draft of the new main page on Monday and met no opposition and saw no changes to the layout. When the ads were turned on today, I made sure the front page was in a layout that didn't look broken for people coming to the site without AdBlock on. If you'd like to use the old front page, that's certainly up to you. I'll post screenshots of what it looks like in the four major browsers to compare with the screesnhots of the new layout as seen above. Also, just want to remind you to clear your cache and disable AdBlock if you have it so you see what everyone else sees. —Scott (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "improvements" involved removing the link to Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving and the download links for Firefox and ABP. --FortMax 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? I mean, I can vaguely understand removing the adblock plus links- from an ideological "Why, if you become a member you no longer even NEED adblock!" standpoint... but he removed the link to the debate about leaving Wikia?

That's... really unpleasant. -Derik 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott, we know how to compare histories. We can see you adjusted the code when the broken layout was reported. Repeatedly implying we were just all having caching problems- not that you only bothered to check the layout worked in IE (the true source of the problem) is a big part of the reason no one is giving you helpful feedback on whether the layout is still broken now. We'd rather have you twitching in uncertainty, and since we've demonstrated a bull-headed willingness to let the site be broken out of spite... you can never really know for sure, can you?

FYI, the last wikia rep that blew into town to roll out monaco (on a weekend when all our admins were gone) gave us a song-and-dance that turned out to include several outright objectively-verifiable falsehoods to get us to go along with him, then broke our templates styles when he was porting things. Even after repeatedly having the problem pointed out to him, he declared the migration "done with no problems!" and left, leaving us with a broken site.

What I'm saying is... it's not just you. Basically this has been typical of this community's interaction with wikia personnel, and you're inheriting a tontine of ill-will.

Enjoy! -Derik 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Derik. I'm sorry your experience with Wikia reps has been unpleasant. I was really just trying to help out. Just so people can see the different versions, here's what your front page looks like with no ads disabled and the cache cleared.

• 
  Firefox
• 
  Internet Explorer
• 
  Opera
• 
  Safari

You're certainly welcome to keep it this way, I was just trying to offer a better solution. No one else came up with another idea since Monday, so I implemented the neater layout. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but the front page ads are on and they're not going away for people who don't use AdBlock. Please let me know if I can help you guys come up with a better solution. Thanks, man. —Scott (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Would that be firefox 3 you're running? Because it sure doesn't look like that in my browser. (We've been having trouble with one of our coders who switched to firefox 3. He's careful to periodically check his layouts and not just assume that layouts that look one way in his bleeding-edge just-released browser with a completely rewritten rendering engine will look that way for other users.) -Derik 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I notice that your revision also removed the TfWiki.net site title and rebranded the main title as Wikia's.

Was there a reason for that, along with removing the link to our site's discussion about whether or not to leave Wikia? (I mean, it was kinda important. That's why it was on the front page.) Scott? -Derik 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just the mock-up I came up with and linked to on Monday. Anyone was welcome to add to it at anytime all week. Nobody opposed it, so I used that version when the ads went live today. Please feel to adjust it accordingly :) —Scott (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just retire that old "nobody opposed it" horse right now. Lots of people objected. An admin objected before you forged ahead. I don't know what operating procedure is for Wikia staff, but you're not doing much to dispel the notion that you folks are going to do what you want to our wiki whether we object or not.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry that your previous experiences with Wikia have not met your expectations. Speaking only for myself, please see above where I asked "is it okay if I migrate the mock-up?" at 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC). The only response was Derik's wish to "contemplate the relative benefits" for two days. I was certainly willing to work with you guys to meet the best outcome, so when there were no other suggestions, I figured you were okay with the mock-up. —Scott (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can repeat that no one actively opposed the change as much as you want- but the fact you migrated a page that was broken in 2 of the 3 major web browsers remains. And when you migrated it, it was reverted not for being broken, but for being fugly (and for stripping out things we wanted in there that Wikia wasn't comfortable with, and conveniently were the only things to tossed when Wikia-guy was rewriting our layout.) Having now ENCOUNTERED opposition, you instead migrated it again, with changes, and repeatedly tried to claim the original layout hadn't been broken, and that other users were experiencing caching problems.

May I reiterate now how being screwed, ignored, lied to, and left with a broken site is typical of our interactions with Wikia? It is, possibly, unfair to hold you responsible for the actions of others, but we can damn well hold you responsible for actions you take that perpetuate that cycle. -Derik 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well here's the thing, Scott. We're pursuing other options. Danny knows this, and directed us on the steps we'd need to take. Sannse knows this, and has been helping us with the database dumps. The very same frontpage you templated off of had a link to our ongoing discussion on leaving Wikia. You had to see this link in order to make your mockup. So either there's a fundamental lack of observation coupled with Wikia staff not communicating with each other as to the current status of the Teletraan-I community... or other less savory assumptions must be made. I mean, I don't want to accuse here, but this whole affair has been, as I said, rather tone-deaf to the sentiments we've been expressing.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to make accusations. He's still doing the Wikia-handbook "if I repeat my position enough times it will make me right" thing in defiance of reality. It's not that I object to being lied to— I'm pretty used to that— but I object to being lied to badly. To me, not even bothering to lie convincingly conveys a deep lack of respect the other parties involved.

Frankly between the condescending attitude, the 'ideological sanitization' of the frontpage, repeated falsehoods that he still wont' cop to, general technical negligence, and what is essentially (and I might be reading into this here, but I don't think I am) telling us that we will not be allowed to not have some version of his design for our main page... I'm pretty much ready to move for ban on the grounds of vandalization in defiance of community wishes, and a declared intent to recommit despite having had the those wishes made clear to him. -Derik 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosicrucian, yes, we are aware of the plans, including Scott (and as you can see, I'm still following the talk here). But that doesn't mean we aren't going to keep trying to work with you and make the ad changes here as smooth as we can. Whether contributors move or not, this wiki will still be here, and maybe some of you will choose to stay with it. But either way, we will keep trying to communicate, keep trying to work with the community, and keep trying to find ways to make this wiki work. I made Suki Brits and ItsWalky admins here when this wiki was almost non-existent. I'm proud of what they and the community have achieved since. I don't believe that's at an end -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (who is logging off for the night now)

That is a very laudable (if unrealistically optimistic) viewpoint. -Derik 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)