CWCki talk:CWCki is

Not ED

Someone, try and round off what I started on the Not ED. Rachmanov, I'm looking at you. --Champthom 14:15, 18 October 2009 (CEST)

CWCki is a handbook?

This is just a suggestion.

While it's true that the cwcki is not ALWAYS right, most of the time, it is. The CWCki is used as a reliable source of information by everyone, from PVCC to /cwc/. The CWCki is almost always the final authority on the facts of Chris. While the information on talk pages are almost completely erroneous, the articles of the CWCki are held to a high standard.

or something along those lines, something to be a counterpoint for CWCki is not always right, and something about the important role the cwcki serves in trolling Chris. --Megaman 00:00, 8 September 2010 (PDT)

Minor quibble (and entirely IMHO)- the CWCki is not about trolling Chris, merely documenting him. The fact that this documentation is frequently used for trolling is inconsequential. --Ronichu 02:05, 8 September 2010 (PDT)

Well, either way, the CWCki is a tool, and an important one. It's not going to be used to troll Chris directly, but it's a repository for all our knowledge. Frankly, it makes a lot of what we do possible, if not a little bit easier. I'm suggesting an addition like this because this article is a bit self deprecating and understates the importance of the wiki. --Megaman 13:20, 8 September 2010 (PDT)

TV Tropes

A lot of people complain about the conjecture on pages and I was thinking if it's perhaps because of the editors we have from TV Tropes. Now Cogs doesn't feel this way but I like TV Tropes, but I think one problem might be is that TV Tropes editors will come over to the CWCKi with the TV Tropes mentality. If anyone feels that I characterized TV Tropes, by all means correct me. But I think that concerns over conjecture on the CWCKi should be addressed and I think this is a start. --Champthom 07:31, 27 September 2011 (PDT)