CWCki:Community Portal/Archive 4

Welcome to the future
Welcome to the glorious future of MediaWiki 1.15.1! MediaWiki 1.11 was really old and busted.

Here are some of the things people should be aware of:
 * This version of MediaWiki uses a new markup parser. It's a stricter parser that works a little bit differently from the old one. Which incidentally means that if you have broken markup somewhere, it might have worked in previous version, but it doesn't work any more at all. You may see a lot of articles that have broken &lt;center&gt; tags. Make sure they're properly balanced!
 * There are a few new features that we might put to good use. One is __HIDDENCAT__ . You can use it to hide categories that are purely for editors, and don't actually have stuff that benefits readers. For example, it's used in and  now.

I'll probably post more when I get inspired. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 12:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some help needed at . Some frequently used templates had consistently broken markup and have missing &lt;/center&gt; tags. They also use &lt;table&gt; tags instead of MediaWiki table tags. Take a look at what I did at, say, Template:Needs Images to see how to fix all of these, for the GLORIOUS FUTURE. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 12:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the (center) thing comes when people put a inside a  tag; quote has its own center tags included, so when MediaWiki parses them both you get two open tags and two close tags. One of the open tags, then, is rendered as text. --Umad 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem can also be avoided by changing the 'center' tag on Template:Quote to CSS; I'll look at it later. --Umad 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's more difficult than I expected... looks like   is going to remain cludgey for the time being, until somebody more patient/learn'd than I takes a crack at it. --Umad 01:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken refs
Similar issue: Some articles may use tags without corresponding. Previous version was silent about this, but new version puts a giant big red warning in the end of the articles. If you see it, please add a source section! --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris and/New pages
There's a lot of newfags, which isn't a bad thing but I think some people who decided to get into editing CWCki since we moved to the new server and who really haven't gotten a feel of how we do things around here. For starters, a lot of people want to start making pages which can be alright, but the problem is that they really don't get when a new page is warranted and when it's not. Particularly, it seems like the "Chris and" series is drawing a lot of attention to this regard.

For starters, let's discuss the "Chris and" series of articles. I think I might have actually come up with it, now that I think about it, mimicking how CWCkipedia might have an article like "x and y" to discuss topics that are too in depth for the main subject article. For example, there might be an article called "Thomas Jefferson and slavery" to discuss his views on slavery since it's such a huge topic that can't reasonably fit in the main Thomas Jefferson article. Same deal here - we could in theory mention this shit on the Christian Weston Chandler article but that would be huge, especially for topics like sex. It would be awkward to call something like "Chris and sex" just "sex" since people know what sex is, what they want to know is Chris's relationship to it.

I think the problem is that every single trait of Chris does not need a lengthy discussion unless it's very notable. Do we need a full page discussion that Chris isn't reliable when it can simply be said "Chris is not very reliable"? Likewise, there's a need for a degree of subjectivity - what is reliability? It's not like Chris sets any deadlines to make. Furthermore, not everything has to be "Chris and." As I said elsewhere, pretty much every article on here could be a "Chris and [x]" article. HOMOS could easily be "Chris and homosexuality." JERKS could be "Chris and men." Women's rights could be "Chris and feminism." Point is, not everything has to be "Chris and." For fuck's sake, be original. Think of a better name. For example, "Chris and facts" could easily be called "The world according to Chris." Unorthodox but more original.

About new pages in general, seriously, not every little thing about Chris deserves a page if it can be incorporated into existing pages. As long as it's mentioned somewhere, it's cool. Srsly.

Feel free to weigh in on this. --Champthom 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the Chris and: Series, I really do, but It's really only for things that play major, consistent roles in the bizarre story of Chris-Chan. Chris and writing is a good example.  The way Chris writes is just so impossibly fucked up that it deserves more than just a single mention in the main chris article, but calling it just "Writing" is weird and awkward.
 * I think some of these new articles could really go far. Chris and Authority seems like it could cover an awful lot, but people really need to draft their articles in their sandboxes or talkpages to show what they're aiming for instead of just making a page with the title and a half-paragraph.--Beat 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a mind to try a 'Chris and competition' article. Covering not just in regards to how he feels entitled to win all competitions, thats covered in Chris and his ego. I was thinking also about how he views things that he dislikes negatively because he believes it competes with something he does approve of, Such as with the whole 'Aspergers vs Autism' fight that he seems to believe exists. Or his strange idea that Harry Potter sucks for competing with pokemon, even though Harry Potter is a book and movie series and pokemon is a game and anime series. I'm not too sure about whether or not to go ahead with it though. I think it may end up being rather small. Do you think I should go for it, or incorperate it into another article? --Edward 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. It's one of those weird quirks (of Chris) that we don't really understand because we haven't taken much of alook at it. Maybe start with a thread on /cwc/ to get more ideas/opinions about these things before you start writing. There's also how Chris 'competes' against other boys in his fuck quest, that might already be covered elsewhere, but maybe you could go more in-depth. -Whoreos n&#39; Milf 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Asperpedia
Clyde has started Asperpedia, the OFFICIAL and ORIGINAL wiki for Asperchu, the electric hedgehog Pokemon with Asperger's syndrome. From what I've gathered from Clyde, it's going to be like a cross between CWCki and CWCipedia. As there's many gifted wiki editors here, I encourage all of you to help out there (particularly with uploading all the comic pages of Asperchu onto there).

Ideally, big things will come from this, wink wink stomp stomp nudge nudge. --Champthom 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm such a dumbass, here's the link. --Champthom 23:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I lol'd--Toughdog6789 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality control jerkops
I have just promoted Griffintown as the CWCki's first Quality Control Jerkop to patrol the CWCki to ensure high quality Bavarian standards for CWCki (i.e. pages don't suck). There will be a 30 day probationary period, ending 07 February 2010 so he will have to prove in that period he can help maintain high quality standards for CWCki.

CWCki strives itself on providing top notch info about Chris and the idea is that these new Jerkops will assist in making sure the CWCki doesn't suck and the information is accurate.

Godspeed to Griffintown and if you have concerns about article quality, be sure to mention it to him. --Champthom 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to thanks Champthon for the great mark of confidence he did to me by giving me the extra powers needed to keep this place clean. If any member of the CWCki community feels the need to discuss any of my decisions here, please leave me a message on my talk page. I am ready to listen to any comment that can make the CWCki site a better reference on everything Chris-Related. Griffintown 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also promoted Dude (formerly Umad) to Quality Control. Same thing as Griffintown, same probationary period. That's it for Quality Control promotions at the moment and I'll review how they do at the end of their probationary period to see if they remain permanently. --Champthom 01:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I have recently been occupying myself with formatting issues and finding homes for Unused Files (thank my meticulous Swiss ancestors), but I will now start being more proactive with page organization and content as well.  Please do not hesitate contact me with thoughts, questions, suggestions or critiques! --Dude 06:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing internal links pointing to the old site
Apparently people used tons of internal hard links to the old site. Most of these are simply attempts to link at "tricky to link" entries, like categories and images. (Hint: You can make a link to a category or image if you prefix the link with a :, like Category of Randomness .) The above link lists all such links in main namespace, which is pretty important. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuff that Chris didn't do
Chris and racism currently has a PROTIP that says that Chris never actually used the expression "darkies". It reminds me: Should we have some sort of list of stuff that's often attributed to Chris, but never happened in real life? (Some other examples that spring in mind: Chris hasn't used the word "niggos" regularly, and he didn't actually have 100% trophies in Sonichu 2006.) Or should we just have some template like the PROTIP template, like this...

Ideas? --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 19:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually like this a lot. This is a good thing for actual distributions to Chris. --Champthom 01:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The protip thing, that is. It's kinda like a little "Did you know?" thing but should be restricted to common misconceptions about Chris (like the darkies thing). --Champthom 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs the word INDIVIDUAL, for some reason. I think it's fine. Chris is a complicated animal and some of the more subtle things, like race relations, are open to misinterpretation. --OFSheep 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a most excellent idea. The template is catchy and allow proper info to flow through. I will use it in the future Griffintown 03:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial Mailbag 41 project
I was originally going to have it so Chris would receive e-mails meant for Alec Benson Leary but instead, I did something more plausible by paying tribute to this [http://hrwiki.org/wiki/huttah! Strong Bad e-mail] by having every e-mail talk about Asperchu. Post e-mails in the same vein here and I'll post them. Only rule is please, don't alter the first four e-mails. --Champthom 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Deadline is like, in 24 hours. --Champthom 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DPF call?
So these videos have gotten some attention and it seems like the real deal. On the one hand, some of the people in the call seem like huge fags. On the other hand, there seems to be some nuggets of truth in it. So, should we make a page for this? Consider it "apocryphal?"? Thoughts? --Champthom 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't listen to them right now, but I guess if an EDF idiot calls Chris and records it, it's our burden to transcribe it. Also, why the hell don't we have pages for Kacey Calls 2 and 3?--Beat 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: New category
Do you guys think that there should be a category for Chris-related media that has appeared publicly? By which I mean things like the Sonic the Hedgehog Watch & Win Sweepstakes or the McIntire Park video that appeared on TV. Basically, anything that's NOT exclusive to the internet. Tyranogre 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The two radio shows that featured him could go in that category too, if they had their own page. -- L i  m  e  [[Image:Madotsuki.png]] 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a 3rd radio show on satellite that mentioned him. -Whoreos n&#39; Milf 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it started. I also added the articles that were printed in Nintendo Power, for good measure. Tyranogre 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mailbags vs Simple Questions
I think Clyde already made a suggestion along these lines weeks ago, but can't we just replace the mailbags with series of simple questions? Most letters in the mailbags either: (A) insult Chris such that he deletes him, or (B) mix easy and hard questions such that Chris answers the easy questions but conveniently ignores the hard ones. If we replaced (or supplemented) the mailbags with series of questions (and more focused ones than what we're sending now), we could actually get Chris to answer tougher questions. Plus, less reading for Chris = a quicker turn-around time for answers = more opportunities for us to interrogate Chris about specific subjects. Llort 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clyde's original intent was to replace the Mailbag with the questions, hence why he wanted to phase out Operation Mailbag. Unfortunately, Mailbag is a popular feature on CWCipedia and it's more or less devolving into a way to troll Chris than to get genuine information from him. Difference approaches to trolling are at play, I'm afraid. --Champthom 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Links to articles in heading
I think other pages do this, but I know this is particularly the case in Christian Weston Chandler. I'm not sure if this is good wiki style, as generally a heading shouldn't have a link but rather have a "Main article" link - for instance, the subsection of Sonichu really should have a note that says "Main article: Sonichu" for those who wish to delve into Sonichu. However, we can if we truly want to keep it like it is, but as I've said, let's try and mimic good wiki style. Thoughts? --Champthom 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Name for CWCki users?
Dumb thing to talk about, but any idea for a good term to describe CWCki users? Originally, "CWCkipedians" were used but that's confusing since there's now CWCipedia. "CWCki users" is used in some cases but it's a bit bland. CWCkians? CWCkifags? You people probably can come up with something better than I can. --Champthom 10:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CWCronologists. Christorians.--Beat 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like Christorians. We already use the term "Christory", so it makes sense to use this too. -Whoreos n&#39; Milf 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sold to the "Christorians" term. So classy. Griffintown 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Was pointed here by Champ when I brought it up on my talk page. CWCkians was my first choice, until I came here. Christorians sounds better. --16BitAlex 04:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Today in Christory
You guys have really made a mess of the Christory template in January! 20+ red links, I'm ashamed! Ofcourse, I'm partially to blame, but I was travelling and under stress and stuff, whilst all of YOU GUYS were playing with your xBoxes and wanking and doing the shit your kind tends to do. So, anyway, I just created all entries for February, but that doesn't mean you can slack off and ignore this again, you lazy editors! Whenever you find time just make a bunch of entries for march and beyong. Get it into your routine. It's fun. Love and peace. Template:Christory :3 RachmaninovDESU 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

500 intenal servic error.
I keep getting these when clicking links. Is this a problem on my end, or is the website having trouble or what?--Beat 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the website's fault - sometimes the site is a bit flaky, especially if you hit potentially intensive operations like page history or RecentChanges. Just try again. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 11:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting the same. Just hit [back] and try again. lol, I got one trying to post this. -Whoreos n&#39; Milf 19:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: A Chris Inactivity Chart
Similar to the tracker on the front page for the comics, I think it would be nice to have a tracker for the days that Chris seemingly disappears off the face of the earth. Ever since things... escalated on his CWCipedia, he's been quieter than a North Korean dictator after a stroke. It might be nice just to have an official record of how long our glorious leader goes without making a statement to the masses. May I suggest "All Quiet on the Weston Front"? -- TubularMonkey 08:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this. Its a good idea for a main page feature and its a fairly good pun as well.--Edward 17:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but it may be annoying to update it daily to show when Chris isn't inactive those times when he seems to update stuff every day. --Champthom 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I hated this idea, I would support it for the sake of the pun. (And I happen to love the idea.) Llort 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quintin Tarantino
Would anyone be up for an article comparing Chris to Tarantino? Both are insensitive plagiarist, I think something good could be done here.
 * No. Sign your comments--ThatMan 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Piping
Someone, do me a favor - take this and rework it to make it relevant to CWCki.

Seriously, I am tired of fucking shitty piping. "Lack of female companionship" should not pipe to Virginia is for Virgins. I would personally pipe it to "virgin with rage" or something like that. There's too much shitty piping going on and it needs to stop. --Champthom 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How's this? Revolver Octopus 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Special assignment
I have a special assignment for the CWCki for those who wish to accept it. Prerequisite is you have a LOT of free time.

AIM me or contact me in #sonichu (details on my user page) for more information. --Champthom 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Coca-cola
Considering how much CWC mentions coca-cola and his whole tangle with the company, should a Coca-Cola page be started? Chaosakita 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the right place to suggest new articles. Also CWC Cola and My Coke Rewards. I guess that should cover most relevant shit on sugary kiddie-drinks, so no. :3 RachmaninovDESU 03:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Announcement
Since no one has risen to the challenge to be a temporary admin, instead I'll just say that until Tuesday, I'll be traveling and thus unable to monitor the CWCki. If there's some dispute how to do shit, sort it out amongst yourselves. If shit gets serious, then ask Cogs or Clyde. But ideally, I'm sure you're all big boys and girls and can sort things out yourself. --Champthom 04:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We should start a forum dedicated to Chris Chan's failings.
The CWCiki is awesome, I will admit. However, I have an great idea that if implanted correctly, will make the forum a success.

Someone here should start a forum dedicated completely to all of Chris Chan's failings. We can talk about anything Chris Chan releated and a lot more.

Does anyone agree? I'll start up the forum if so. Super Smash Bros. Fan 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How would it be different from /cwc/? - Liquid! 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or PVCC (aside from the fact they aren't letting new people in, though MAYBE cogs will let you in if you edit the CWCki, but I doubt it)? --Champthom 06:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only other people are doing it better but any Forums based on Chris-Chan will drag some crowd from ED. As much as I love them, I don't want to see 13 y/o EDtards uploading their crap all over the CWCki. Yes, I am a sad bloke but a forum is not worth the extra effort. Griffintown 04:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual Wikipedia Page?
While the CWCki is a great source for information on the failure that is Chris, shouldnt we make him more... accessible to a mainstream audience? What im saying is that I believe the mastadonic level of Chris's failure throughout his life is legitamately noteable by the standard of Wikipedia at this point. He could easily be regarded as an "Internet Trolling Victim", and if the article is written from this perspective chances are the Wikiadmins will pass it. Share your thoughts. Gettanonymous 17:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people are gonna be like "WE DON'T WANT NEWBS TROLLING CHRIS" but that's not why I'd say that a Wikipedia article on Chris would be a bad idea. Essentially, based on notability guidelines on Wikipedia, for someone to be notable, you need for starters significant coverage and reliable secondary sources. To be honest, we're not really reliable since we're pretty biased as fuck, and Chris in the scheme of things isn't really that popular - he's been on maybe one, two big blogs but other than that he's mostly been on ED, random YouTube faggots' pages, etc. There's a lot of bigger Internet celebrities who don't have their own Wikipedia page and it's not the end of the world that they don't have them. Not to mention people regularly try to start a page for Chris and usually get shot down fast and frankly.
 * I think CWCki does its best to present Chris to the mainstream better than say, ED. Just because we work to document Chris's fail does not mean we're on some sort of mission though to spread the word or anything like that. --Champthom 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It probably is too soon. But the harder Chris fails the more the public will start looking at him. Its only a matter of time before making a wikipedia page titled "Chistian Weston Chandler (Serial Rapist)" will be justifiable. Gettanonymous 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the problem we have. Websites like ours or Wikipedia are pretty reactive. They are accessed by those seeking info. We are not pushing any messages out. For me, trying to put Chris-Chan up on Wikipedia in the name of accessing a mainstream audience is a moot point. Yes, I am waiting for Chris to produce an "Exhibit A" anytime soon. Griffintown 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)