Forum:CPFW Beseechment

Vote is below

In case anyone questions the new inclusion of the CPFW on the Sidebar, here is the discussion that authorized it.

Thank you so much.


 * 1) x [12 Jan]  Sharkbate: ill check which admins are online
 * 2) x [12 Jan]  rock
 * 3) x [12 Jan]  Hello.
 * 4) x [12 Jan] ... No, I'm not the one clearing anything.
 * 5) x [12 Jan] ... However, I wish to beseech the reinclusion of the CPFW on your sidebar.
 * 6) x [12 Jan]  Do you have us on your sidebar?
 * 7) x [12 Jan]  I will.
 * 8) x [12 Jan]  you can add it if you add a link to us on your sidebar
 * 9) x [12 Jan]  Ok.
 * 10) x [12 Jan]  I will if I can get this agreement through.
 * 11) x [12 Jan] ... Understood. I will do it immediantly. Thank you so much.
 * 12) x [12 Jan] ... This Shout Box Discussion will be archived for verification's sake.

-- � This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! � :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. � 02:03, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * One admin can't decide everything. I rolled this back till we get other's opnions. (One of the things we will talk about about is fanon on the sidebar.) --Zapwire 11:03, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

ZoMG NoT ANoThER REfOrM!!1!1! Seriously though, I support this, but just because you're a Dictator admin doesn't mean you can ignore the cabal community. We need to make a vote. However, I will only aprove this if it includes a link to the Uncensored Club Penguin Wiki aswell (the un-cp is dying that's why) Dancing Penguin  (Talk!) (Contribs) (Edits) 12:27, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dancing Penguin. Instead of a giant link on the sidebar saying 'Fanon', have "Related" wikis as a link and either have the wikis as a sub-menu, or redirect it to a navigation page for related wikis.

So, these are the choices:
 * A link saying Fanon.
 * A link saying Fanon and UNCP below it.
 * A link saying 'Related Wikis', and a sub-menu on the sidebar listing the related wikis.
 * A link saying 'Related Wikis', which directs the user to a page where all related wikis are listed.

-- Tigernose    Chat   •  Edits   20:37, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tigernose :) I prefeer the second option however, the three wikis should have links in the sidebar to the other two. This is beneficial for everyone. Unlike what some people might think, this won't make people go away, but rather making it easier for people to choose if they want factual, fictional, satirical or all three. Dancing Penguin  (Talk!) (Contribs) (Edits) 21:10, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, second sounds good - Wompus78 21:12, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I don't want the sidebar to have like 5 links on it, it will be really untidy, rather just make it a sub-menu. Of course you stated your problem with the sub-menu, but only them two wikis will be in the sub-menu if we use it. Or we could have the big two, and a sub-menu link below it listing all the 'other' ones. -- Tigernose  [[Image:Tigernose.png|link=User:Tigernose/profile|20px]]  <font face="Aharoni">Chat  •  <font face="Aharoni">Edits  18:52, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were all equal here. Dictators, political bosses, sysops, aren't we all the same on this site?

Sharkbate AND Seahorse both verified and allowed this. If every sysop is equal, than Seahorse and Sharkbate should have the right to allow linking without the consensus of you. Besides, Tigernose, you're probably just mad that we didn't waste time by using your sacrasanct democracy. Speaking of which, was the Un-CP not banned by the holy doctrine of popular vote after the battles that ensued? Isn't it true that your fellow comrade equal sysop (also my close friend), Hat Pop, resents the inclusion of the Un-CP?

You're blocking this link because you see it as an excuse to link to that wretched Un-CP, considering that YOU edit there and that DP fully supports your move.

Letting the ballot rule all is as bad as one man ruling, Tigernose. No longer am I the dictator, the ballot is now the dictator. No man can just lay it down, it must be put through a vote that clogs the effiency of the site. What if every single law in Congress went to referendum, and the Masses had to vote for EVERYTHING? We'd be voting every few days! Sometimes, the "equal" leaders need to think for themselves and enact codings good for the site and its allies, avoiding the popular vote. We linked you the second that this discussion was authorized. After you removed your link to us, I'm making sure to keep our link to you.

Now, go and have your precious vote. We'll see you in a few days.

Also, ONE LINK is not "untidy". Put CPFW under "recent changes", like we put you under ours. It's not that ahrd, and no one reads the sub-menus anyway. At least, not at our site.

-- � This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! � :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. � 21:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop moaning TurtleShroom. All you do is go on about me, nobody cares. We've got 4 choices, why do you have to care, I never even said I voted against. Stop moaning! -- <font face="Tahoma">Tigernose  [[Image:Tigernose.png|link=User:Tigernose/profile|20px]]  <font face="Aharoni">Chat  •  <font face="Aharoni">Edits  18:52, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree to link to the Fanon, but not UNCP. That site is too inappropriate. -- Hat Pop <font face="papyrus" color="purple">Bunny Ears Rule! 21:23, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure it's innaproprite, but shouldn't we give people the right to decide whether they can handle the content? We can have a link to the disclaimer. Who are we to say "No don't go" anyways? <font color="8B4513">Dancing <font color="#006400">Penguin  (Talk!) (Contribs) (Edits) 21:42, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

We should add CPFW, but the UNCPW link should point to a page with a warning about the content, and asking the visitors if they want to continue or not. -- Staffan15  (talk  21:45, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Number 4 or maybe 3 is best, keeps the sidebar tidy and still gives them links. (PLEASE PUT IT IN COMMUNITY SECTION OF THE SIDEBAR THOUGH!) --Zapwire 21:24, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Zapwire, however I'm afraid people will start adding links to Puffle Wiki, Beta Wiki, Penguin Chat Wiki, Anti-CP Wiki, etc. <font color="8B4513">Dancing <font color="#006400">Penguin  (Talk!) (Contribs) (Edits) 21:42, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Only administrators has access to editing the sidebar... -- Staffan15  (talk [[File:Admin.png]] 21:45, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * By "people" I mean adminstrators. <font color="8B4513">Dancing <font color="#006400">Penguin  (Talk!) (Contribs) (Edits) 21:54, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

@DP: You shoudld just clear uneccesary links whenever they pop up. It's that easy. --Explorer 21:49, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * UNCP is not part of the linking deal, and will not be linked to as long as their site is uncensored and inappropriate. -- Hat Pop <font face="papyrus" color="purple">Bunny Ears Rule! 21:55, January 13, 2010 (UTC)



If you put a "Related Wikis" link in the sidebar, wouldn't that negate the purpose of a direct link? It's not very efficient Google Juice, because Google doesn't index MediaWiki:Monaco-sidebar without a {string of numbers}.html profile instated, and even then, it can't read MediaWiki syntex like it can with HTML. Not putting a direct link on the sidebar would negate this whole debate. The idea is a direct link from one to the other. We're doing that for you, why can't you simply think for yourselves, skip the ballot, and put us there too? -- � This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! � :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. � 21:56, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, some deeds do need a vote. Second, the sidebar is on every page, so you get juice. (also, the Google.html files do nothing for wikias - Google indexes wikia differently.) --Zapwire 22:52, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zapwire-- 21:57, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ya know, i have an idea. The fanon and cpw can merge into one big wikia nd we will have tons of google juice, and be one of the biggest cp info sources ever. The admins of the fanon will still be the same and be given a special "Fanon Admin" right, which gives them all the admin tools but they only work on the fanon part of the wiki. What do you think? We can work togetehr instead of fighting all of the time. We can even have different skins for the different areas of the wiki! -- seahorseruler [[File:A.png]]| Talk  (EditCount) 23:26, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * No.-- Ced 1214 Talk 23:30, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had that idea! Love it! Like Avatar Wiki, amirighte? <font color="8B4513">Dancing <font color="#006400">Penguin  (Talk!) (Contribs) (Edits) 23:32, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. -- seahorseruler [[File:A.png]]| Talk  (EditCount) 23:33, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothankyou.jpg - they should stay seperate - we are canonical, and plus they'd have to change a lot, something they dislike. Links are good enough. --Zapwire 23:35, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but that's just going to make the merge wiki go kablooka. Ever since the CPW Reformation, the Fanon and CPW have been... opposed. Users on the CPFW have different beliefs than the CPW, and the polarity is just too much. The potential for a flame war to erupt within the first few weeks of the merge would shake the wiki to pieces. --Explorer 23:56, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, THIS FANON MERGE IS GOING TO BE IN IT'S OWN TOPIC LATER, MKAY? --Zapwire 00:12, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

No fanon merge. Own topic yes, but seriously the only reason why I don't want it is: chaos... Here's my other points:
 * A lot of us have grudges on eachother.
 * It's too ambitious. It's so ambitious it's a shambles. Firstly, the admins will block eachother or whatever. Secondly, what's the point of a "Fanon Admin" right, we can just have an "admin" right. Thirdly, they were given admin rights on their wiki, not ours, and that will cross-over the rules. Fourthly, there is no way we're going to get a new right made.
 * They have twice as much more content than us, we might as well call the merge the "Fanon" wiki. There's going to be a 2:1 for Fanon to be a random page.
 * We're canonical, they'd have to change a lot, Zapwire is too correct. It's too big. It's an ambitious idea, a great idea theoretically, but realistically it won't work. Nothing more than a dream in my opinion. Especially my 2nd point. -- <font face="Tahoma">Tigernose  [[Image:Tigernose.png|link=User:Tigernose/profile|20px]]  <font face="Aharoni">Chat  •  <font face="Aharoni">Edits  18:57, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Un Club Penguin Wiki gets no inclusion, despite it being as much of a related wiki as the fanon, then I oppose this entirely. - Wompus78 19:30, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reasons why the Un Club Penguin Wiki deserves to be advertised just as much as the fanon:


 * Satire and fanon are just as important as each other.
 * Unlike the fanon wiki, Un-CP users have never shunned the Club Penguin Wiki for months on end.
 * The Un Club Penguin Wiki is dying and needs a lot of help.
 * Vandals who vandalise here simply due to their dislike of Club Penguin could simply be redirected to the Un CP. - Wompus78 20:45, January 14, 2010 (UTC)