CWCki talk:Priority Listing

Okay, I made a list similar in the vein of Wikipedia's priority articles in terms of stuff that really needs to be done and what doesn't necessarily need to be done. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. --Champthom 21:40, 2 May 2009 (CEST)

Image Resizing

Anyone got a good batch image processing program? That could probably speed things up --Megaman 08:29, 26 July 2009 (CEST)

• Batch resizers don't give that good a balance between quality and such. No worries, I am working through the list and most of the larger files are done now. I should have the rest resized within a couple of days. Work permitting. --Fuckingstupid 11:59, 26 July 2009 (CEST)

Why not just pay for some hosting that isn't completely shitty? Even $10 a month can get you some acceptable hosting, especially for a small site like this one. Fat Nigger 12:02, 26 July 2009 (CEST)

Even with paid hosting, the size of some of these images is an inexcusable waste. --Fuckingstupid 15:18, 26 July 2009 (CEST)

• IT'S DONE. --Fuckingstupid 03:08, 31 July 2009 (CEST)

Added two tasks

Namely:

• Make sure that every article has the article-name repeated in bold text, and then clarified, in the article's first scentence. (this makes the wiki more readable, and more professional. wikipedia always does it.)
• Add related pages sections to articles that can use them. This stimulates our visiters into further browsing. (as stated, people will get interested by this and start reading more)

I try to do these things myself now and again, but I often forget. I hope you guys find this important enough to be included, also, I added it to high priority, because otherwise nobody will give a damn. :3 RachmaninovDESU 05:39, 10 October 2009 (CEST)

• Well everything can't be a high priority because that cheapens what high priority is. Also, it's a good idea to do the bold text thing but some articles are so well written without this format. For instance, 2007 starts with "The year we made contact." It wouldn't work if it was "2007 was the year we made contact." Now it's alright to say "The year we made contact. 2007 was the year..." But sometimes for style, it's alright to have it in the second or even third sentence. --Champthom 08:02, 10 October 2009 (CEST)

IRC Logs

• I made a script to clean up the IRC logs, so I'm going to be updating most of the pages with logs eventually. On another note, what should be the default behaviour when a line runs off the page in one of the logs? A horizontal scrollbar inside the <pre>, or line wrapping? The current way of adding a horizontal scrollbar to the entire page isn't very aesthetically pleasing. --Tumbleweed 23:33, 2 November 2009 (CET)

Video infoboxes

Am I the only one who isn't feeling the new video infoboxes? Like, at all? They seem totally redundant to information already available within video articles, and they just look ugly the way they clutter the pages. Rather than make their further use a super high priority, I vote that we entirely stop using them ASAP! Llort 07:09, 8 December 2009 (CET)

Could you link an example of such a monstrosity? I'm not sure I know what's being discussed. O.o --Tristran 07:27, 8 December 2009 (CET)

• The idea is that most of the information that is already in the article now can instead be put into the Infobox. Like instead of saying "Such and such video (officially this and that), uploaded day Month 200x..." we can now say "Such and such video is where Chris..." For Tristran, here's an example. --Champthom 08:00, 8 December 2009 (CET)

• Well we can do it like that. I looked up a Wikipedia article with an Infobox to see how it's used and it's still redunant, but it's a concise sort of redundancy, like it's a sort of "basic info" sort of deal that can be used. --Champthom 08:03, 8 December 2009 (CET)

• It does, indeed, seem pretty redundant when the information is already part of the page text. I think they'd be convenient if that information were removed from the page text and simply put into the box on the side, though. --Tristran 15:47, 8 December 2009 (CET)

• Do the infoboxes have to be so... I dunno... Ugly? Anyways, if we're gonna do infoboxes, we really should follow the Wikipedia example. We could color code the title bar to correspond to what kind of video it is, and have the succession at the bottom. I have stuff to get done right now, but I'll try to screw around with this in my sandbox later today.--Beat

• I haven't looked at Template:Infobox that well, but I think they can be styled with appropriate style parameters, so you can have, say, video infoboxes and biography infoboxes that look different. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 16:28, 8 December 2009 (CET)

• The point of infoboxes is to provide concise summaries at one glance. It will be, by design, a little bit redundant with some facts in the articles - but the big point of infoboxes is that if you just need a critical factoid, you can look for them in the infobox instead of reading through half of the article. Perhaps the video boxes should be expanded to include useful summary information, like really short summaries of the videos and stuff the videos are notable for (i.e. "First appearance of Aivey", "Introduced us to the concept of YOUNG LADIES"). Or shirt information. Everyone loves shirt information. Everything that's in the list of videos right now. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 16:28, 8 December 2009 (CET)

• Wouldn't standardizing the presentation of basic facts about each video within the header text of each video's article make for a simpler and much less redundant way of accomplishing what these infoboxes are trying to accomplish? Don't get me wrong: all of the info that wwwwolf and others want to see in an infobox is fine to want on a page; it's just that I see no reason not to simply incorporate all of that info into uniform summary sections. Llort 17:04, 8 December 2009 (CET)

Is there any kind of list of what videos don't have infoboxes, or a Template to tag videos that need it? If not should one be made?Mellowyellowsalvation 22:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about this too. It looks from the list that all have been given infoboxes, if the existence of categorisation icons is anything to go by. Is that not necessarily the case? BrianBash 18:00, 7 February 2011 (PST)

Old CWCipedia links should be fixed

In the vein of "fix broken links", I'd like to point out that since the old CWCipedia imploded, we have been left with a bevy of links that lead to a 404 page. This can be changed by redirecting any example you see to the CWCipedia archive. I'm sure I'm not the first one to say this. Go and fix links to the extreme!--SeventhBase 09:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Revised system

Okay, yes, it's funny that everything was some variant of "high" priority but that's not very useful. Instead, I revised it so it's more natural, that people will look at and see what needs to be done. --Champthom 13:15, 4 March 2011 (PST)