Wikia

SpongeBob SquarePants

Ideas for ESB, Part 7

  • AMK152
    AMK152 closed this thread because:
    done
    13:52, August 4, 2014

    All prior ideas and their status are listed here: ESB:Suggestions.

    Keep the suggestions coming in this thread.

      Loading editor
    • Lumoshi
      Lumoshi removed this reply because:
      off-topic
      21:56, July 13, 2014
      This reply has been removed
      Zzv

      amk152 what is your 3ds friend code?

        Loading editor
    • Make online game pages bigger

        Loading editor
    • Zzv

      More detailed and make it all info, but try to make it short, if you can.

        Loading editor
    • Since it has not been determined what we are going to use as a "latest appearance", I am going to use online games because it is an appearance and is newer than the latest episode. I am bringing this up so that we have a discussion on the offical "latest appearance".

        Loading editor
    • For crew members/cast members, should we use the full name in the infobox or the credited name.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: For crew members/cast members, should we use the full name in the infobox or the credited name.

      We need the fullest information possible.

      Tom Kenny can be the page name, but the infobox can have the full name.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: For crew members/cast members, should we use the full name in the infobox or the credited name.

      We need the fullest information possible.

      Tom Kenny can be the page name, but the infobox can have the full name.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      Day/Night chat: http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/Day/Night_chat.

      I strongly oppose that. We have users from different countries: meaning different time zones.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • JosephHawk wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      Day/Night chat: http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/Day/Night_chat.

      I strongly oppose that. We have users from different countries: meaning different time zones.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • That is still somewhat in the beta phase. 

        Loading editor
    • JosephHawk wrote: That is still somewhat in the beta phase. 

      We should test it first.

        Loading editor
    • Why do we need to test something that isn't complete? :P

        Loading editor
    • JosephHawk wrote: Why do we need to test something that isn't complete? :P

      It is working for people using Firefox.

        Loading editor
    • FileUsageAuto-update (helps to mitigate the time consumption of File namespace maintenance by updating file links automatically):
      http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/FileUsageAuto-update

        Loading editor
    • Yes, but a fair amount of people use others like Safari, Chrome, Internet Explorer... etc. 

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote: FileUsageAuto-update (helps to mitigate the time consumption of File namespace maintenance by updating file links automatically):
      http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/FileUsageAuto-update

      Joseph, what about this one?

        Loading editor
    • Now that looks dandy! I'll do more research.

        Loading editor
    • DynamicImages (solves the problem where GIF animations are mostly replaced with a static thumb when being resized):
      http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/DynamicImages

        Loading editor
    • looks good.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      AutoEditDropdown: http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/AutoEditDropdown

      This isn't a very good idea because someone might accidently press an option he or she doesn't want.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      AutoEditDropdown: http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/AutoEditDropdown

      This isn't a very good idea because someone might accidently press an option he or she doesn't want.

      Okay. It was just an idea.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      This isn't a very good idea because someone might accidently press an option he or she doesn't want.

      Lol... I know a thing or two about presisng option you don't want. :P (Mainpage incident)

        Loading editor
    • JosephHawk wrote:
      120d wrote:

      This isn't a very good idea because someone might accidently press an option he or she doesn't want.

      Lol... I know a thing or two about presisng option you don't want. :P (Mainpage incident)

      Yeah. Ever since the VisualEditor option became available, I have been accidentally pressing it, instead of the History option because History used to be the top option.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      JosephHawk wrote:
      120d wrote:

      This isn't a very good idea because someone might accidently press an option he or she doesn't want.

      Lol... I know a thing or two about presisng option you don't want. :P (Mainpage incident)

      Yeah. Ever since the VisualEditor option became available, I have been accidentally pressing it, instead of the History option because History used to be the top option.

      Same with me, on another wiki, I actually removed the option with CSS.

        Loading editor
    • Lumoshi wrote:

      120d wrote:

      JosephHawk wrote:
      120d wrote:

      This isn't a very good idea because someone might accidently press an option he or she doesn't want.

      Lol... I know a thing or two about presisng option you don't want. :P (Mainpage incident)
      Yeah. Ever since the VisualEditor option became available, I have been accidentally pressing it, instead of the History option because History used to be the top option.
      Same with me, on another wiki, I actually removed the option with CSS.

      I wish this wiki would remove the option.

        Loading editor
    • You can change that in Special:Preferences

        Loading editor
    • JosephHawk wrote: You can change that in Special:Preferences

      Yes. I like source mode.

        Loading editor
    • JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences

      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences
      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.

      here you go this will disable it globaly http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Flawless_Diva/NoVisualEditor

        Loading editor
    • Auron~Guardian wrote:

      120d wrote:
      JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences
      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.

      here you go this will disable it globaly http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Flawless_Diva/NoVisualEditor

      You have to add this code into your personal j.s.:w:Special:MyPage/global.js.

      #ca-ve-edit {
          display: none;
      }
        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      Auron~Guardian wrote:

      120d wrote:
      JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences
      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.
      here you go this will disable it globaly http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Flawless_Diva/NoVisualEditor
      You have to add this code into your personal j.s.:w:Special:MyPage/global.js.
      #ca-ve-edit {
          display: none;
      }

      It doesn't appear to be working.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      Auron~Guardian wrote:

      120d wrote:
      JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences
      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.
      here you go this will disable it globaly http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Flawless_Diva/NoVisualEditor
      You have to add this code into your personal j.s.:w:Special:MyPage/global.js.
      #ca-ve-edit {
          display: none;
      }

      It doesn't appear to be working.

      You have to wait for it to refresh as it is cached.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      Auron~Guardian wrote:


      120d wrote:
      JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences
      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.
      here you go this will disable it globaly http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Flawless_Diva/NoVisualEditor
      You have to add this code into your personal j.s.:w:Special:MyPage/global.js.
      #ca-ve-edit {
          display: none;
      }
      It doesn't appear to be working.
      You have to wait for it to refresh as it is cached.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      Auron~Guardian wrote:


      120d wrote:
      JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences
      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.
      here you go this will disable it globaly http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Flawless_Diva/NoVisualEditor
      You have to add this code into your personal j.s.:w:Special:MyPage/global.js.
      #ca-ve-edit {
          display: none;
      }
      It doesn't appear to be working.
      You have to wait for it to refresh as it is cached.

      Okay.

      On your global j.s. you have included <nowiki>. Please remove that as it will not work.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      Auron~Guardian wrote:


      120d wrote:
      JosephHawk wrote:
      You can change that in Special:Preferences
      What I mean is getting rid of the option all together or at least not having me be able to see it. If this can still be achieved by preferences, please tell me how.
      here you go this will disable it globaly http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Flawless_Diva/NoVisualEditor
      You have to add this code into your personal j.s.:w:Special:MyPage/global.js.
      #ca-ve-edit {
          display: none;
      }
      It doesn't appear to be working.
      You have to wait for it to refresh as it is cached.
      Okay.
      On your global j.s. you have included <nowiki>. Please remove that as it will not work.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • On episode/short/movie pages, should we count the character list as the link for that page?

      As similar question can be asked about character and location pages, should we count the infobox as the link for that page?

      If it is not clear, instead of using the image on the left, we use the image on the right.

      Screenshot 1 (1)
      Screenshot 2 (1)
        Loading editor
    • New ideas:

      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages

      Regarding making online games pages bigger - that is part of the goal of ESB, to increase the amount of SpongeBob related information. No need for a suggestion.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: On episode/short/movie pages, should we count the character list as the link for that page?

      As similar question can be asked about character and location pages, should we count the infobox as the link for that page?

      If it is not clear, instead of using the image on the left, we use the image on the right.

      Screenshot 1 (1)
      Screenshot 2 (1)

      I don't know how feel on this one. Perhaps we shall wait for more people to give their input.

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: On episode/short/movie pages, should we count the character list as the link for that page?

      As similar question can be asked about character and location pages, should we count the infobox as the link for that page?

      If it is not clear, instead of using the image on the left, we use the image on the right.

      Screenshot 1 (1)
      Screenshot 2 (1)
      I don't know how feel on this one. Perhaps we shall wait for more people to give their input.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: On episode/short/movie pages, should we count the character list as the link for that page?

      As similar question can be asked about character and location pages, should we count the infobox as the link for that page?

      If it is not clear, instead of using the image on the left, we use the image on the right.

      Screenshot 1 (1)
      Screenshot 2 (1)
      I don't know how feel on this one. Perhaps we shall wait for more people to give their input.
      Okay.

      I would say no.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: On episode/short/movie pages, should we count the character list as the link for that page?

      As similar question can be asked about character and location pages, should we count the infobox as the link for that page?

      If it is not clear, instead of using the image on the left, we use the image on the right.

      Screenshot 1 (1)
      Screenshot 2 (1)
      I don't know how feel on this one. Perhaps we shall wait for more people to give their input.
      Okay.
      I would say no.

      "No" to what? To waiting? To using the right image?

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: On episode/short/movie pages, should we count the character list as the link for that page?

      As similar question can be asked about character and location pages, should we count the infobox as the link for that page?

      If it is not clear, instead of using the image on the left, we use the image on the right.

      Screenshot 1 (1)
      Screenshot 2 (1)
      I don't know how feel on this one. Perhaps we shall wait for more people to give their input.
      Okay.
      I would say no.
      "No" to what? To waiting? To using the right image?

      I am saying "no" to your original questions. ("Should we count the list as the link for that page?" and the link for the infobox.)

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: On episode/short/movie pages, should we count the character list as the link for that page?

      As similar question can be asked about character and location pages, should we count the infobox as the link for that page?

      If it is not clear, instead of using the image on the left, we use the image on the right.

      Screenshot 1 (1)
      Screenshot 2 (1)
      I don't know how feel on this one. Perhaps we shall wait for more people to give their input.
      Okay.
      I would say no.
      "No" to what? To waiting? To using the right image?
      I am saying "no" to your original questions. ("Should we count the list as the link for that page?" and the link fo the infobox.)

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • FloatingToc (adds a button to the table of contents that will turn it into a floating panel when clicked):
      http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/FloatingToc

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Let's have a CGI Video play everytime you go to the main page.

        Loading editor
    • We can modify this feature to be an auto complete in articles comments/editing , chat, and the forum.

      http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/MiniComplete

        Loading editor
    • TrevorOntario719 wrote:
      Let's have a CGI Video play everytime you go to the main page.

      That is not a good idea. Videos chew up a lot of bandwidth and would make the site laggy.

      Remember, more and more people are using smartphones and tablets now and would not appreciate a video using 100MB worth of bandwith.

        Loading editor
    • I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think

        Loading editor
    • Cosmobo wrote:
      I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think

      Could we have a link?

        Loading editor
    • I'll try to find it

        Loading editor
    • JosephHawk wrote:

      Cosmobo wrote:
      I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think

      Could we have a link?

      The "other" SpongeBob wiki that tells the reader the location is SpongePedia: http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Help_Wanted_(Episode)#Info.
      Other info they contain include songs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Jellyfishing_(Episode)#Info)
      and DVDs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Bubblestand#Info). They include characters, time/date, songs, and DVDs in a section called "info."

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      JosephHawk wrote:


      Cosmobo wrote:
      I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think
      Could we have a link?
      The "other" SpongeBob wiki that tells the reader the location is SpongePedia: http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Help_Wanted_(Episode)#Info.
      Other info they contain include songs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Jellyfishing_(Episode)#Info)
      and DVDs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Bubblestand#Info). They include characters, time/date, songs, and DVDs in a section called "info."

      You probably are unaware of this because you are relatively new. This wiki does not associate itself with Spongepedia, as it has false info.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      JosephHawk wrote:


      Cosmobo wrote:
      I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think
      Could we have a link?
      The "other" SpongeBob wiki that tells the reader the location is SpongePedia: http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Help_Wanted_(Episode)#Info.
      Other info they contain include songs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Jellyfishing_(Episode)#Info)
      and DVDs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Bubblestand#Info). They include characters, time/date, songs, and DVDs in a section called "info."

      You probably are unaware of this because you are relatively new. This wiki does not associate itself with Spongepedia, as it has false info.

      I am aware. Cosmobo just suggested we add places to the episode articles.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      JosephHawk wrote:


      Cosmobo wrote:
      I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think
      Could we have a link?
      The "other" SpongeBob wiki that tells the reader the location is SpongePedia: http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Help_Wanted_(Episode)#Info.
      Other info they contain include songs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Jellyfishing_(Episode)#Info)
      and DVDs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Bubblestand#Info). They include characters, time/date, songs, and DVDs in a section called "info."
      You probably are unaware of this because you are relatively new. This wiki does not associate itself with Spongepedia, as it has false info.
      I am aware. Cosmobo just suggested we add places to the episode articles.

      I am aware that he suggested that. I was just saying that we shouldn't be getting ideas from them because they are a bad influence.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      JosephHawk wrote:


      Cosmobo wrote:
      I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think
      Could we have a link?
      The "other" SpongeBob wiki that tells the reader the location is SpongePedia: http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Help_Wanted_(Episode)#Info.
      Other info they contain include songs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Jellyfishing_(Episode)#Info)
      and DVDs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Bubblestand#Info). They include characters, time/date, songs, and DVDs in a section called "info."
      You probably are unaware of this because you are relatively new. This wiki does not associate itself with Spongepedia, as it has false info.
      I am aware. Cosmobo just suggested we add places to the episode articles.

      I am aware that he suggested that. I was just saying that we shouldn't be getting ideas from them because they are a bad influence.

      Adding places to episode articles won't contain false info.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      JosephHawk wrote:



      Cosmobo wrote:
      I had also found this 'other' spongebob wiki where it tells you what locations appeared in episodes on a episode page and that sounds really cool I think
      Could we have a link?
      The "other" SpongeBob wiki that tells the reader the location is SpongePedia: http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Help_Wanted_(Episode)#Info.
      Other info they contain include songs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Jellyfishing_(Episode)#Info)
      and DVDs (http://en.spongepedia.org/index.php?title=Bubblestand#Info). They include characters, time/date, songs, and DVDs in a section called "info."
      You probably are unaware of this because you are relatively new. This wiki does not associate itself with Spongepedia, as it has false info.
      I am aware. Cosmobo just suggested we add places to the episode articles.
      I am aware that he suggested that. I was just saying that we shouldn't be getting ideas from them because they are a bad influence.
      Adding places to episode articles won't contain false info.

      I know that.

        Loading editor
    • The full episodes from Youtube posted on episode articles should be removed as it is copyrighted. Some episodes have already been removed from Viacom.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      The full episodes from Youtube posted on episode articles should be removed as it is copyrighted. Some episodes have already been removed from Viacom.

      I agree.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      The full episodes from Youtube posted on episode articles should be removed as it is copyrighted. Some episodes have already been removed from Viacom.

      I agree.

      Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • Template for appearances of locations, as we have a template for appearances of characters: Template:Appear.
      Example of the character appearance template being used: Betsy Krabs/appearances,

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      Template for appearances of locations, as we have a template for appearances of characters: Template:Appear.
      Example of the character appearance template being used: Betsy Krabs/appearances,

      Why don't you just use the same template?

      Of course, you would have to make a different Appear/Top, though.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      Template for appearances of locations, as we have a template for appearances of characters: Template:Appear.
      Example of the character appearance template being used: Betsy Krabs/appearances,

      Why don't you just use the same template?

      Of course, you would have to make a different Appear/Top, though.

      Making a different Appear/top is what I meant.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      Template for appearances of locations, as we have a template for appearances of characters: Template:Appear.
      Example of the character appearance template being used: Betsy Krabs/appearances,
      Why don't you just use the same template?

      Of course, you would have to make a different Appear/Top, though.

      Making a different Appear/top is what I meant.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • I think that the locked redirects the redirect to the background character list should be unlocked, so that they can become normal pages again.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: I think that the locked redirects the redirect to the background character list should be unlocked, so that they can become normal pages again.

      They are. I requested AW10 to do that, so I could start doing it. I already started to do some. Example: Archie.
      I am also linking the ChList templates to their character pages.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that the locked redirects the redirect to the background character list should be unlocked, so that they can become normal pages again.

      They are. I requested AW10 to do that, so I could start doing it. I already started to do some. Example: Archie.
      I am also linking the ChList templates to their character pages.

      Not all have been unlock some characters like Harv, are still locked. 

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that the locked redirects the redirect to the background character list should be unlocked, so that they can become normal pages again.

      They are. I requested AW10 to do that, so I could start doing it. I already started to do some. Example: Archie.
      I am also linking the ChList templates to their character pages.

      Not all have been unlock some characters like Harv, are still locked. 

      You can ask AW10 to unlock it here: Thread:115130.

        Loading editor
    • Hire more mature, reliable moderators. (Not saying that the current moderators are immature or anything)

        Loading editor
    • Celestial Cookies wrote:
      Hire more mature, reliable moderators. (Not saying that the current moderators are immature or anything)

      No one gets hired for any position on this wiki or any wiki (not counting the community wiki).

        Loading editor
    • Should the character lists be in order of appearance in that episode?

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: Should the character lists be in order of appearance in that episode?

      No, it is ordered from the most important character of the episode to the least important.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: Should the character lists be in order of appearance in that episode?

      No, it is ordered from the most important character of the episode to the least important.

      It is just an idea. Also, what makes a character like Patrick more important than a character like Nat?

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: Should the character lists be in order of appearance in that episode?

      No, it is ordered from the most important character of the episode to the least important.

      It is just an idea. Also, what makes a character like Patrick more important than a character like Nat?

      Patrick has a more major role in most episodes than Nat.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: Should the character lists be in order of appearance in that episode?

      No, it is ordered from the most important character of the episode to the least important.
      It is just an idea. Also, what makes a character like Patrick more important than a character like Nat?
      Patrick has a more major role in most episodes than Nat.

      So? This means nothing. Importance is purely opinionated. Nat has a bigger role in Plankton's Regular than Karen did, but she usually has a bigger role in most episodes.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: Should the character lists be in order of appearance in that episode?

      No, it is ordered from the most important character of the episode to the least important.
      It is just an idea. Also, what makes a character like Patrick more important than a character like Nat?
      Patrick has a more major role in most episodes than Nat.

      So? This means nothing. Importance is purely opinionated. Nat has a bigger role in Plankton's Regular than Karen did, but she usually has a bigger role in most episodes.

      That is why in "Plankton's Regular," Nat is listed second behind Plankton.

        Loading editor
    • This has probably been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up. I think that there should be a rule or an automatic thing where people have to read the rules before editting on this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: This has probably been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up. I think that there should be a rule or an automatic thing where people have to read the rules before editting on this wiki.

      I agree, but what about the people who have edited on this wiki before and have not read the rules? How would they get the message?

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: This has probably been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up. I think that there should be a rule or an automatic thing where people have to read the rules before editting on this wiki.

      I agree, but what about the people who have edited on this wiki before and have not read the rules? How would they get the message?

      Maybe, we would make everyone go through this. So, as soon as you got on the website, you had to go through this. Of course, we would have to have some way of remember who has read the rules.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: This has probably been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up. I think that there should be a rule or an automatic thing where people have to read the rules before editting on this wiki.

      I agree, but what about the people who have edited on this wiki before and have not read the rules? How would they get the message?

      Maybe, we would make everyone go through this. So, as soon as you got on the website, you had to go through this. Of course, we would have to have some way of remember who has read the rules.

      What about those who already read the rules?

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: This has probably been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up. I think that there should be a rule or an automatic thing where people have to read the rules before editting on this wiki.

      I agree, but what about the people who have edited on this wiki before and have not read the rules? How would they get the message?
      Maybe, we would make everyone go through this. So, as soon as you got on the website, you had to go through this. Of course, we would have to have some way of remember who has read the rules.
      What about those who already read the rules?

      Maybe there can be a check thing where they can just go to it and say that they have read the rules.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: This has probably been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up. I think that there should be a rule or an automatic thing where people have to read the rules before editting on this wiki.

      I agree, but what about the people who have edited on this wiki before and have not read the rules? How would they get the message?
      Maybe, we would make everyone go through this. So, as soon as you got on the website, you had to go through this. Of course, we would have to have some way of remember who has read the rules.
      What about those who already read the rules?

      Maybe there can be a check thing where they can just go to it and say that they have read the rules.

      This is when the quiz would come in handy. If one claims to have read the rules, they would have to take a quiz about the rules and pass.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: This has probably been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up. I think that there should be a rule or an automatic thing where people have to read the rules before editting on this wiki.

      I agree, but what about the people who have edited on this wiki before and have not read the rules? How would they get the message?
      Maybe, we would make everyone go through this. So, as soon as you got on the website, you had to go through this. Of course, we would have to have some way of remember who has read the rules.
      What about those who already read the rules?
      Maybe there can be a check thing where they can just go to it and say that they have read the rules.
      This is when the quiz would come in handy. If one claims to have read the rules, they would have to take a quiz about the rules and pass.

      That is a good idea.

        Loading editor
    • I think that the discussion feed should be open to everyone so that people who are not admins or bureaucrats can update it. If it is already, I would like a link to the page.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Celestial Cookies wrote:
      Hire more mature, reliable moderators. (Not saying that the current moderators are immature or anything)

      No one gets hired for any position on this wiki or any wiki (not counting the community wiki).

      You know what I mean.

        Loading editor
    • Celestial Cookies wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Celestial Cookies wrote:
      Hire more mature, reliable moderators. (Not saying that the current moderators are immature or anything)
      No one gets hired for any position on this wiki or any wiki (not counting the community wiki).
      You know what I mean.

      I assume you mean that you want moderators to have a process instead of just giving it to someone.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Celestial Cookies wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Celestial Cookies wrote:
      Hire more mature, reliable moderators. (Not saying that the current moderators are immature or anything)
      No one gets hired for any position on this wiki or any wiki (not counting the community wiki).
      You know what I mean.

      I assume you mean that you want moderators to have a process instead of just giving it to someone.

      Yes, and also to inspect the applicant's character, judging them based on their responsibility and tact.

        Loading editor
    • A template that totals the characters' number of appearances.

        Loading editor
    • I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.

      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.

      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.

      For once, I agree with 120d.

        Loading editor
    • We need to make a log for PMs to quit this chat drama. If it isn't possible. Staff can make it possible.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.
      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.
      For once, I agree with 120d.

      We have agreed on multiple things. I assume that you meant "I know it has been a while, but I actually agree with 120d."

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote: Should the character lists be in order of appearance in that episode?

      No, it is ordered from the most important character of the episode to the least important.
      It is just an idea. Also, what makes a character like Patrick more important than a character like Nat?
      Patrick has a more major role in most episodes than Nat.

      So? This means nothing. Importance is purely opinionated. Nat has a bigger role in Plankton's Regular than Karen did, but she usually has a bigger role in most episodes.

      That is why in "Plankton's Regular," Nat is listed second behind Plankton.

      120d is right. They are to be in order of appearance in the episode. This was established a while ago. See the episode guidelines here.

        Loading editor
    • Celestial Cookies wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Celestial Cookies wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Celestial Cookies wrote:
      Hire more mature, reliable moderators. (Not saying that the current moderators are immature or anything)
      No one gets hired for any position on this wiki or any wiki (not counting the community wiki).
      You know what I mean.

      I assume you mean that you want moderators to have a process instead of just giving it to someone.

      Yes, and also to inspect the applicant's character, judging them based on their responsibility and tact.

      This would be very difficult to enforce and would scare people away. They just need to have easy access to the rules and when they do something wrong, they are notified in a friendly way.

        Loading editor
    • New ideas:

      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think that the discussion feed should be open to everyone so that people who are not admins or bureaucrats can update it. If it is already, I would like a link to the page."
      • AMK152: "What do you mean?"

      • Nicko756: "A template that totals the characters' number of appearances."
      • AMK152: "This is what I am hoping the appearance pages will turn into. Perhaps an appearance count table or something would be useful. I highly doubt we can automatically generate these numbers. It would have to be updated manually."

      • Nicko756: "I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page."
      • 120d: "This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages."
      • Muchacha: "For once, I agree with 120d."
      • AMK152: "Indeed. The episode pages take article name priority. We have several templates that rely on this system."

      • Muchacha: "We need to make a log for PMs to quit this chat drama. If it isn't possible. Staff can make it possible."
      • AMK152: "This cannot be done unless anyone involved actually makes the log themselves by copying and pasting. It would also defeat the purpose of a PM. If someone is bothered by someone in a PM, they should just ignore them."
        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think that the discussion feed should be open to everyone so that people who are not admins or bureaucrats can update it. If it is already, I would like a link to the page."
      • AMK152: "What do you mean?"

      • Nicko756: "A template that totals the characters' number of appearances."
      • AMK152: "This is what I am hoping the appearance pages will turn into. Perhaps an appearance count table or something would be useful. I highly doubt we can automatically generate these numbers. It would have to be updated manually."

      • Nicko756: "I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page."
      • 120d: "This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages."
      • Muchacha: "For once, I agree with 120d."
      • AMK152: "Indeed. The episode pages take article name priority. We have several templates that rely on this system."

      • Muchacha: "We need to make a log for PMs to quit this chat drama. If it isn't possible. Staff can make it possible."
      • AMK152: "This cannot be done unless anyone involved actually makes the log themselves by copying and pasting. It would also defeat the purpose of a PM. If someone is bothered by someone in a PM, they should just ignore them."

      First Response, The discussion feed is not updated enough.

        Loading editor
    • We should have "Special Characters", "Background Characters", "Main Characters", "Family Characters", and "Other Characters" box templates.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: We should have "Special Characters", "Background Characters", "Main Characters", "Family Characters", and "Other Characters" box templates.

      Are you referring to the Template:Characters template?

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: We should have "Special Characters", "Background Characters", "Main Characters", "Family Characters", and "Other Characters" box templates.

      I think that would be too complicated. We only really need one infobox for characters.

      Why? It would be better than the Characters box we have now.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: We should have "Special Characters", "Background Characters", "Main Characters", "Family Characters", and "Other Characters" box templates.

      I think that would be too complicated. We only really need one infobox for characters.

      Why? It would be better than the Characters box we have now.

      I updated my response. I think we were talking about two different things.

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: We should have "Special Characters", "Background Characters", "Main Characters", "Family Characters", and "Other Characters" box templates.

      I think that would be too complicated. We only really need one infobox for characters.
      Why? It would be better than the Characters box we have now.
      I updated my response. I think we were talking about two different things.

      I am not talking about infoboxes. I am talking about template boxes. It is the name I have given to the type of templates below:

      Characters (VTE)

      Main

      SpongeBobPatrickSandySquidwardMr. KrabsPlanktonGary

      Recurring

      Mrs. PuffPearlKarenMermaid ManBarnacle BoyLarry the LobsterSquilliam FancysonJohnny ElaineFlying DutchmanPatchy the PiratePotty the ParrotKing NeptunePainty the Pirate

      Major Background

      Bubble BassFredHarold BillNat PetersonOld Man JenkinsSandalsTomSadie Rechid

      Lists

      MainBackgroundFamiliesSpecialOther

        Loading editor
    • I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

      Perhaps an entire transcript of the movie credits to be added to this.

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

      Perhaps an entire transcript of the movie credits to be added to this.

      That would be a good idea

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

      Perhaps an entire transcript of the movie credits to be added to this.

      That would be a good idea

      I didn't realize that we didn't have one, but here is a start: The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (credits)

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

      Perhaps an entire transcript of the movie credits to be added to this.
      That would be a good idea
      I didn't realize that we didn't have one, but here is a start: The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (credits)

      So, should we add those pages?

        Loading editor
    • A tralier for the main SpongeBob SquarePants T.V series posted on the main page for readers who are not familar with SpongeBob.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

      Perhaps an entire transcript of the movie credits to be added to this.
      That would be a good idea
      I didn't realize that we didn't have one, but here is a start: The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (credits)

      So, should we add those pages?

      Which page?

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

      Perhaps an entire transcript of the movie credits to be added to this.
      That would be a good idea
      I didn't realize that we didn't have one, but here is a start: The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (credits)
      So, should we add those pages?
      Which page?

      The pages for the pirates or just a page for the pirates.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      A tralier for the main SpongeBob SquarePants T.V series posted on the main page for readers who are not familar with SpongeBob.

      Does not seem necessary we already have SpongeBob SquarePants (series) this page has a trailer on it already.

      Besides videos take up bandwidth and make the site laggy.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.
      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.
      For once, I agree with 120d.
      We have agreed on multiple things. I assume that you meant "I know it has been a while, but I actually agree with 120d."

      I think new users would be very confused by this. If it was renamed "Bubble Buddy (episode)," it would be clear that that article is the episode article and the Bubble Buddy (character) would be the character article.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:




      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.
      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.
      For once, I agree with 120d.
      We have agreed on multiple things. I assume that you meant "I know it has been a while, but I actually agree with 120d."
      I think new users would be very confused by this. If it was renamed "Bubble Buddy (episode)," it would be clear that that article is the episode article and the Bubble Buddy (character) would be the character article.

      It would not be confusing if they looked at the top of the page and see, "If you were looking for the article about the character, then see Bubble Buddy (character)."

      People are not as stupid as you think.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:




      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.
      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.
      For once, I agree with 120d.
      We have agreed on multiple things. I assume that you meant "I know it has been a while, but I actually agree with 120d."
      I think new users would be very confused by this. If it was renamed "Bubble Buddy (episode)," it would be clear that that article is the episode article and the Bubble Buddy (character) would be the character article.
      It would not be confusing if they looked at the top of the page and see, "If you were looking for the article about the character, then see Bubble Buddy (character)."

      People are not as stupid as you think.

      Having "Bubble Buddy (episode)" would not take the reader to the other page in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:





      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.
      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.
      For once, I agree with 120d.
      We have agreed on multiple things. I assume that you meant "I know it has been a while, but I actually agree with 120d."
      I think new users would be very confused by this. If it was renamed "Bubble Buddy (episode)," it would be clear that that article is the episode article and the Bubble Buddy (character) would be the character article.
      It would not be confusing if they looked at the top of the page and see, "If you were looking for the article about the character, then see Bubble Buddy (character)."

      People are not as stupid as you think.

      Having "Bubble Buddy (episode)" would not take the reader to the other page in the first place.

      Neither would keeping it the way it is now. Just because you add "(episode)" does not change the links.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:





      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.
      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.
      For once, I agree with 120d.
      We have agreed on multiple things. I assume that you meant "I know it has been a while, but I actually agree with 120d."
      I think new users would be very confused by this. If it was renamed "Bubble Buddy (episode)," it would be clear that that article is the episode article and the Bubble Buddy (character) would be the character article.
      It would not be confusing if they looked at the top of the page and see, "If you were looking for the article about the character, then see Bubble Buddy (character)."People are not as stupid as you think.
      Having "Bubble Buddy (episode)" would not take the reader to the other page in the first place.
      Neither would keeping it the way it is now. Just because you add "(episode)" does not change the links.

      We can change the links.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:






      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think episodes that have another article of the same name (ex: Bubble Buddy), should have the article renamed to something like "Bubble Buddy (episode)." Only the character article is named like this (Bubble Buddy (character)). If the episode article is renamed, then the "Bubble Buddy" page can become a disambiguation page.
      This is not a good idea. The reason we have it the way we do is because "(character)" is there to say that this is not the episode. We have disambiguation pages already which would be something like "Bubble Buddy (disambiguation)". Just let the redirections at the top deal with confusion between pages.
      For once, I agree with 120d.
      We have agreed on multiple things. I assume that you meant "I know it has been a while, but I actually agree with 120d."
      I think new users would be very confused by this. If it was renamed "Bubble Buddy (episode)," it would be clear that that article is the episode article and the Bubble Buddy (character) would be the character article.
      It would not be confusing if they looked at the top of the page and see, "If you were looking for the article about the character, then see Bubble Buddy (character)."People are not as stupid as you think.
      Having "Bubble Buddy (episode)" would not take the reader to the other page in the first place.
      Neither would keeping it the way it is now. Just because you add "(episode)" does not change the links.
      We can change the links.

      Why? If it isn't broken, don't fix it. People are not dumb. They can see that it is not the page about the character. They can see the link to the character, they can see the title card, and they can see what the article is about.

        Loading editor
    • The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring.

        Loading editor
    • Image categories for each episode (Ex: Category:"Help Wanted" images)

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote: The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring.

      Could you draft a guide and we can have the community approve of it through discussion? I thought that making the grammar guide people could just add proper grammar usage. Since there is dispute, it seems that we need to start actually discussing them.

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote: The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring.

      Could you draft a guide and we can have the community approve of it through discussion? I thought that making the grammar guide people could just add proper grammar usage. Since there is dispute, it seems that we need to start actually discussing them.

      Only a few rules are debated.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      Image categories for each episode (Ex: Category:"Help Wanted" images)

      This seems useless because we have the galleries.

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote: The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring.

      Could you draft a guide and we can have the community approve of it through discussion? I thought that making the grammar guide people could just add proper grammar usage. Since there is dispute, it seems that we need to start actually discussing them.

      It is already in the grammar guide titled Quotes, Italicized, or Neither.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      Image categories for each episode (Ex: Category:"Help Wanted" images)
      This seems useless because we have the galleries.

      Not all the images are in the galleries in which they appear.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Nicko756 wrote:
      Image categories for each episode (Ex: Category:"Help Wanted" images)
      This seems useless because we have the galleries.
      Not all the images are in the galleries in which they appear.

      Then they should be. Not everything needs a complicated solution. You don't need to buy a fancy vacuum to get rid of dust, all you need is a wet rag or paper towel.

        Loading editor
    • I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers.

        Loading editor
    • I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."

      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."

      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?

      Everything not listed.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:

      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.

      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:

      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.

      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.

      We can discuss the exceptions later.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.

      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.
      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.
      We can discuss the exceptions later.

      I don't think that the discussion should exist if you don't even know one of the exceptions.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.

      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.
      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.
      We can discuss the exceptions later.

      I don't think that the discussion should exist if you don't even know one of the exceptions.

      Reverting an edit just because one does not think the edit another person made is correct and no discussion regarding the edit has been made.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:



      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.

      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.
      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.
      We can discuss the exceptions later.
      I don't think that the discussion should exist if you don't even know one of the exceptions.
      Reverting an edit just because one does not think the edit another person made is correct.

      That goes under either a illegitimate revert or a "#7" edit depending on the case.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:



      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.

      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.
      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.
      We can discuss the exceptions later.
      I don't think that the discussion should exist if you don't even know one of the exceptions.
      Reverting an edit just because one does not think the edit another person made is correct.

      That goes under either a illegitimate revert or a "#7" edit depending on the case.

      We can have the discussion with all the exceptions, and have the community decide which exceptions we should keep.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:



      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:



      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.
      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.
      We can discuss the exceptions later.
      I don't think that the discussion should exist if you don't even know one of the exceptions.
      Reverting an edit just because one does not think the edit another person made is correct.
      That goes under either a illegitimate revert or a "#7" edit depending on the case.
      We can have the discussion with all the exceptions, and have the community decide which exceptions we should keep.

      Again, I don't think that we should have a discussion about this if there are that many/not clear enough reasons. Also, limiting the amount that a user can revert on a page is a bad idea, especially for the Admins. This wiki is about editting as much as you want. (or at least, it should be)

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:



      Nicko756 wrote:

      120d wrote:



      Nicko756 wrote:
      I think we should have the "three-revert rule" (3RR) from Wikipedia.
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
      Exceptions:
      1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
      2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
      3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
      4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

      5. Removal of clear copyright violations
      6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
      7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

      What isn't an exception?
      Everything not listed.
      Which is what? You basically ruled out any legitimate reason to revert in the first place.
      We can discuss the exceptions later.
      I don't think that the discussion should exist if you don't even know one of the exceptions.
      Reverting an edit just because one does not think the edit another person made is correct.
      That goes under either a illegitimate revert or a "#7" edit depending on the case.
      We can have the discussion with all the exceptions, and have the community decide which exceptions we should keep.

      Again, I don't think that we should have a discussion about this if there are that many/not clear enough reasons. Also, limiting the amount that a user can revert on a page is a bad idea, especially for the Admins. This wiki is about editting as much as you want. (or at least, it should be)

      We need to have a set rule in regards to edit warring.

        Loading editor
    • I think that the slogon needs to be changed because, much like the last slogon, "The SpongeBob SquarePants encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it is not accurate. People who are underage cannot join. It think that we should have something like "The Unofficial Official SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki" (yes, it does matter which order "unofficial" and "official" are in because if it was the "Official Unoficial SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki", that would mean the SpongeBob people have said that this is the "Unoffical SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki".)

        Loading editor
    • I think we should have a new page for "Requests for Block". It seems weird that we would have it on the "Requests for Ban" page.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      I think we should have a new page for "Requests for Block". It seems weird that we would have it on the "Requests for Ban" page.

      I agree with your idea.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.
      Okay.

      I think we should change from Requests for Ban to Requests for Block.

        Loading editor
    • SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.
      Okay.
      I think we should change from Requests for Ban to Requests for Block.

      But what if a person wanted someone banned?

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.
      Okay.
      I think we should change from Requests for Ban to Requests for Block.
      But what if a person wanted someone banned?

      A block can mean anything like you can request the person to be blocked from 2 hours to infinite.

        Loading editor
    • SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.
      Okay.
      I think we should change from Requests for Ban to Requests for Block.
      But what if a person wanted someone banned?
      A block can mean anything like you can request the person to be blocked from 2 hours to infinite.

      I guess.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.
      Okay.
      I think we should change from Requests for Ban to Requests for Block.
      But what if a person wanted someone banned?
      A block can mean anything like you can request the person to be blocked from 2 hours to infinite.
      I guess.

      Yeah. So what do you think of my idea?

        Loading editor
    • SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.
      Okay.
      I think we should change from Requests for Ban to Requests for Block.
      But what if a person wanted someone banned?
      A block can mean anything like you can request the person to be blocked from 2 hours to infinite.
      I guess.
      Yeah. So what do you think of my idea?

      I think it is a good idea.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      SpongeyTube wrote:
      120d wrote:
      Spongebob456 wrote:
      Yes, as do I. The term "Ban" sounds permanent, not temporary. Not even sure if the name change requires a discussion in all honesty. I will speak with AMK and AW10 though.
      Okay.
      I think we should change from Requests for Ban to Requests for Block.
      But what if a person wanted someone banned?
      A block can mean anything like you can request the person to be blocked from 2 hours to infinite.
      I guess.
      Yeah. So what do you think of my idea?
      I think it is a good idea.

      Thanks. :)

        Loading editor
    • Actually, I think it should be renamed abuse report or something. That way, admins can review the reports and make a decision.

        Loading editor
    • New ideas:

      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"
        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote: New ideas:

      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"

      About 120d's reception idea, I don't like it at all.

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"

      In response to your response, on some pages there are things that are like "Most fans disliked this episode because [Insert reason here]." Recently people have begun to use a reviewer named "The Mysterious Mr. Enter".. They have been quoting him. I think that this is good. We should have specific people's reviews instead of general views.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"

      In response to your response, on some pages there are things that are like "Most fans disliked this episode because [Insert reason here]." Recently people have begun to use a reviewer named "The Mysterious Mr. Enter".. They have been quoting him. I think that this is good. We should have specific people's reviews instead of general views.

      Well, what's wrong with "Most fans dislike this episode" being used as well as reviews?

      Maximum information is important.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"
      In response to your response, on some pages there are things that are like "Most fans disliked this episode because [Insert reason here]." Recently people have begun to use a reviewer named "The Mysterious Mr. Enter".. They have been quoting him. I think that this is good. We should have specific people's reviews instead of general views.
      Well, what's wrong with "Most fans dislike this episode" being used as well as reviews?

      Maximum information is important.

      It is speculative becuase people can only know what they thought of the episode and they can ask others, but they cannot know the majorities opinion on an episode.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"
      In response to your response, on some pages there are things that are like "Most fans disliked this episode because [Insert reason here]." Recently people have begun to use a reviewer named "The Mysterious Mr. Enter".. They have been quoting him. I think that this is good. We should have specific people's reviews instead of general views.
      Well, what's wrong with "Most fans dislike this episode" being used as well as reviews?

      Maximum information is important.

      It is speculative becuase people can only know what they thought of the episode and they can ask others, but they cannot know the majorities opinion on an episode.

      Um, look at all the sources around you. You got SBM, online forums, blogs, MoBrosStudios' countdown vids, you name it.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote: The full episodes from Youtube posted on episode articles should be removed as it is copyrighted. Some episodes have already been removed from Viacom.

      Don't you mean BY Viacom?

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:

      120d wrote: I think that we need to add pages for the pirates that appear in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. They do have names, they are revealed in the credits. At least, we should have 1 page for them.

      Perhaps an entire transcript of the movie credits to be added to this.

      Well, the credits are around 7 minutes long (very long), and movie credits can be extremely tiny and difficult to read. Pausing just makes it blurrier, depending on what kind of DVD player you have. So I'm not sure how we would do that.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote: The full episodes from Youtube posted on episode articles should be removed as it is copyrighted. Some episodes have already been removed from Viacom.

      Don't you mean BY Viacom?

      Yes.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:


      AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"
      In response to your response, on some pages there are things that are like "Most fans disliked this episode because [Insert reason here]." Recently people have begun to use a reviewer named "The Mysterious Mr. Enter".. They have been quoting him. I think that this is good. We should have specific people's reviews instead of general views.
      Well, what's wrong with "Most fans dislike this episode" being used as well as reviews?

      Maximum information is important.

      It is speculative becuase people can only know what they thought of the episode and they can ask others, but they cannot know the majorities opinion on an episode.
      Um, look at all the sources around you. You got SBM, online forums, blogs, MoBrosStudios' countdown vids, you name it.

      I am not completely sure how this is a response to my statement, but I will respond anyway. It is not about where you can find people's opinions. There are tons of opinions on the web and not on the web. Not everyone goes on forums or participates in ccountdowns. What I am saying is that there is NO way to find out the majority and that we shouldn't use generalizing statements and should use individual's opinions of an episode, even if it is a user on this site (the user would have to write his or her opinion himself or herself.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:

      • 120d: "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • AMK152: "Could you elaborate?"
      In response to your response, on some pages there are things that are like "Most fans disliked this episode because [Insert reason here]." Recently people have begun to use a reviewer named "The Mysterious Mr. Enter".. They have been quoting him. I think that this is good. We should have specific people's reviews instead of general views.
      Well, what's wrong with "Most fans dislike this episode" being used as well as reviews?

      Maximum information is important.

      It is speculative becuase people can only know what they thought of the episode and they can ask others, but they cannot know the majorities opinion on an episode.

      Um, look at all the sources around you. You got SBM, online forums, blogs, MoBrosStudios' countdown vids, you name it.

      All speculative and unsourced citations in regards to reviews should be removed.

        Loading editor
    • I think the timeline pages (example:May 12) should be unprotected or at least lowered to registered users. There are enough users that if a date gets vandalized it will probably be fixed soon after.

        Loading editor
    • "Show/hide" button for templates (the ones on the bottom of the page [Ex:Template:Books]).

        Loading editor
    • Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote: Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially.

      In addition to this, all episode errors should be listed in the order they appear for that episode.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote: Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially.

      In addition to this, all episode errors should be listed in the order they appear for that episode.

      Those are both good ideas.

        Loading editor
    • I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

      A staff meeting.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

      When did you do this? and you're welcome.
      A staff meeting.

      Wait, did you think of it before or did you ask a writer?

        Loading editor
    • How about we organize all tabs on List of characters like it is organized for List of merchandise/videos?

        Loading editor
    • I also suggest we create a rule that on message walls, discussion boards, forums and everywhere same system is used, if you want to quote somone, never do a double quote, only qoute the message you are replying to.


      Wrong

      120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

      A staff meeting.


      Correct

      120d wrote:
      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

      A staff meeting.


      It will be easier to follow things.

        Loading editor
    • AW10
      AW10 removed this reply because:
      shouldn't be restored.
      19:58, July 26, 2014
      This reply has been removed
      AW10 wrote:
      I also suggest we create a rule that on message walls, discussion boards, forums and everywhere same system is used, if you want to quote somone, never do a double quote, only qoute the message you are replying to.----
      Wrong

      120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

      When did you do this? and you're welcome.
      A staff meeting.
      Correct

      120d wrote:
      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

      A staff meeting.

      It will be easier to follow things.

      What?

        Loading editor
    • AW10 wrote: I also suggest we create a rule that on message walls, discussion boards, forums and everywhere same system is used, if you want to quote somone, never do a double quote, only qoute the message you are replying to.


      Wrong

      120d wrote:

      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

      A staff meeting.


      Correct

      120d wrote:
      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

      A staff meeting.


      It will be easier to follow things.

      I think double quotes are fine, but not triple or more quotes.

        Loading editor
    • AW10 wrote:
      I also suggest we create a rule that on message walls, discussion boards, forums and everywhere same system is used, if you want to quote somone, never do a double quote, only qoute the message you are replying to.----;Wrong


      120d wrote:


      Muchacha wrote:

      120d wrote: I just realized how we can solve the naming problem and all non-sourced information. Ask the writers. I mean ask the writers on one's Twitter page. It's so simple. I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

      Uh, I did.

      And thanks for complimenting me and Nicko on our ideas.

      When did you do this? and you're welcome.
      A staff meeting.----
      Correct


      120d wrote:
      When did you do this? and you're welcome.

      A staff meeting.----

      It will be easier to follow things.

      I don't like that idea because if there is more than one person it might not always make sense. 

      This is what I am talking about:

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 3

      Person 1 responding to person 2

        Loading editor
    • Quoting isn't always necessary anyways. Some people do over-quote. There's not much need to unless you're replying to a message which was posted a while before the latest one.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      I don't like that idea because if there is more than one person it might not always make sense. 

      This is what I am talking about:

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 3

      Person 1 responding to person 2

      Yes, but when you press the quote button, it will automatically generate link to post you are quoting. Like "reply to #180" in this one.

        Loading editor
    • AW10 wrote:

      120d wrote:
      I don't like that idea because if there is more than one person it might not always make sense. 

      This is what I am talking about:

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 3

      Person 1 responding to person 2

      Yes, but when you press the quote button, it will automatically generate link to post you are quoting. Like "reply to #180" in this one.

      You have to remove everything but the post you're replying to MANUALLY.

        Loading editor
    • AW10 wrote:

      120d wrote:
      I don't like that idea because if there is more than one person it might not always make sense. 

      This is what I am talking about:

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 1

      Person 2

      Person 3

      Person 1 responding to person 2

      Yes, but when you press the quote button, it will automatically generate link to post you are quoting. Like "reply to #180" in this one.

      But people don't use the numbers. Also, if you look at the scheme. it goes First message, reply to the first message, reply to the first reply, reply to the second reply, either second message or reply to one of the previous 3 replies, reply to the third reply. In your system it would be Original Message, first quote, second quote, second message, first quote, either third message or second quote to either the original message or second message, second quote. It doesn't work because it probably doesn't fit Person's three's message. Also, if person three wanted to quote he or she couldn't if they want to reply to the second quote of the original message.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      But people don't use the numbers. Also, if you look at the scheme. it goes First message, reply to the first message, reply to the first reply, reply to the second reply, either second message or reply to one of the previous 3 replies, reply to the third reply. In your system it would be Original Message, first quote, second quote, second message, first quote, either third message or second quote to either the original message or second message, second quote. It doesn't work because it probably doesn't fit Person's three's message. Also, if person three wanted to quote he or she couldn't if they want to reply to the second quote of the original message.

      Here is my system visually shown:

      • Person 1 - BlahBlah1
      • Person 2 - "BlahBlah1" BlahBlah2
      • Person 1 - "BlahBlah2" BlahBlah3
      • Person 2 - "BlahBlah3" BlahBlah4
      • Person 3 - BlahBlahNew <OR> "BlahBlah2" BlahBlah5
      • Person 1 responding to person 2 - "BlahBlah4" BlahBlah6

      Quoted text means quoted.

        Loading editor
    • I created a new wiki-background for the sides with one of the suggestions I suggested earlier:
      Wiki-background Suggestion
      If people like it, this can replace the one we have now.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote: I created a new wiki-background for the sides with one of the suggestions I suggested earlier:
      500px
      If people like it, this can replace the one we have now.

      Incredible! This couldn't be more perfectly made!

        Loading editor
    • AW10 wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote: I created a new wiki-background for the sides with one of the suggestions I suggested earlier:
      500px
      If people like it, this can replace the one we have now.

      Incredible! This couldn't be more perfectly made!

      Thank you!

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote: I created a new wiki-background for the sides with one of the suggestions I suggested earlier:
      500px
      If people like it, this can replace the one we have now.

      Uploaded.

        Loading editor
    • You have changed the background on my tablet to sky blue. Is there any way it can be changed back to yellow?

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:
      You have changed the background on my tablet to sky blue. Is there any way it can be changed back to yellow?


      My laptop also has the same background. I think they meant to change it.

        Loading editor
    • We have decided during the last meeting to create the new sides and sky blue background around the image matches new sides.

        Loading editor
    • I suggest a policy update.

      I. Multiple Accounts
      1. Each user is only allowed one account, unless you have a good reason that can be approved by the administration. In that event, all users must identify themselves as the owner of the accounts on the user pages.

      1A. Creating another account in the event of a block or infinite ban, for the purpose of making edits in defiance of said block/ban, is considered evasion and is strictly prohibited.
      In addition, any edits made in an evasion of a sanction may be reverted to enforce the sanction (adding missing punctuation or reverting obvious vandalism does not require being undone). As the blocked user is unauthorized to make these edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.

      2. Only administrators may have a bot account. This account must be flagged after a discussion.

        Loading editor
    • spongebobia.com should link to spongebobia.wikia.com.

        Loading editor
    • New ideas:

      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)
      • 22) Show/hide for templates on bottom of page.
      • 23) "Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially."
      • 24) "In addition to this, all episode errors should be listed in the order they appear for that episode."
      • 25) "How about we organize all tabs on List of characters like it is organized for List of merchandise/videos?"
      • 26) "I also suggest we create a rule that on message walls, discussion boards, forums and everywhere same system is used, if you want to quote somone, never do a double quote, only qoute the message you are replying to."
      • 27) Updating the "Multiple Accounts" policy.
      • 28) Link spongebobia.wikia.com at www.spongebobia.com

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:


      • 120d: "I think the timeline pages (example:May 12) should be unprotected or at least lowered to registered users. There are enough users that if a date gets vandalized it will probably be fixed soon after."
      • AMK152: "I will work on unlocking those. They were locked because of SBU."

      • Nicko756: "Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially."
      • AMK152: "What do you mean?"

      • Muchacha: "I suggest a policy update."
      • AMK152: "I don't think we need to revert edits of sock puppets if they are not vandalism."
        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:
      New ideas:
      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)
      • 22) Show/hide for templates on bottom of page.
      • 23) "Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially."
      • 24) "In addition to this, all episode errors should be listed in the order they appear for that episode."
      • 25) "How about we organize all tabs on List of characters like it is organized for List of merchandise/videos?"
      • 26) "I also suggest we create a rule that on message walls, discussion boards, forums and everywhere same system is used, if you want to quote somone, never do a double quote, only qoute the message you are replying to."
      • 27) Updating the "Multiple Accounts" policy.
      • 28) Link spongebobia.wikia.com at www.spongebobia.com

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])

      Responses:


      • 120d: "I think the timeline pages (example:May 12) should be unprotected or at least lowered to registered users. There are enough users that if a date gets vandalized it will probably be fixed soon after."
      • AMK152: "I will work on unlocking those. They were locked because of SBU."

      • Nicko756: "Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially."
      • AMK152: "What do you mean?"

      • Muchacha: "I suggest a policy update."
      • AMK152: "I don't think we need to revert edits of sock puppets if they are not vandalism."

      Episode images from galleries should be renamed and ordered in the order they appeared.

        Loading editor
    • Nicko756 wrote: Episode images from galleries should be renamed and ordered in the order they appear.

      Yeah, of course.

        Loading editor
    • Muchacha wrote:

      Nicko756 wrote: Episode images from galleries should be renamed and ordered in the order they appear.

      Yeah, of course.

      Some people name their images before checking to see if their images should go inbetween other images that appear before or after the screenshot. In addition, many galleries have images out of sequence, making naming images even more difficult.

        Loading editor
    • All you need to do is put the images in order. I can go back an rename them so they are in order later. I plan on making that a project. Just make sure all the images are in order.

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote:
      All you need to do is put the images in order. I can go back an rename them so they are in order later. I plan on making that a project. Just make sure all the images are in order.

      Okay.

        Loading editor
    • Having emoticons for users on chat. Ex: http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Emoticons?oldid=527626.

        Loading editor
    • New ideas:

      • 1) Day/night chat
      • 2) AutoEditDropdown
      • 3) ImageAnnotator
      • 4) FileUsageAuto-update
      • 5) DynamicImages
      • 6) FloatingToc
      • 7) CGI video on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 8) MiniComplete
      • 9) Places listing on episode articles (we had this in the past, but they were removed)
      • 10) Appearance tables for locations (the template can be applied for places also)
      • 11) Tables for character appearance totals
      • 12) Episode disambiguations (episode) - unpopular idea
      • 13) Separated character templates
      • 14) Pages for the pirates from the movie - a single page would be good enough
      • 15) Trailer on main page - videos on main page are not a popular idea
      • 16) "The community needs to agree on a list of everything that is quoted, italicized, or neither to prevent edit warring." - can be added to grammar guide
      • 17) Image categories for episodes - use Category:Images from Help Wanted
      • 18) "I think we shouldn't allow any general reception of episodes. I think it should all be sourced and about certain reviewers."
      • 19) Adopt 3 revert rule from Wikipedia
      • 20) Slogan change
      • 21) Requests for block page (or change ban to block, or change to abuse report)
      • 22) Show/hide for templates on bottom of page.
      • 23) "Episode galleries should be reordered and named sequentially."
      • 24) "In addition to this, all episode errors should be listed in the order they appear for that episode."
      • 25) "How about we organize all tabs on List of characters like it is organized for List of merchandise/videos?"
      • 26) "I also suggest we create a rule that on message walls, discussion boards, forums and everywhere same system is used, if you want to quote somone, never do a double quote, only qoute the message you are replying to."
      • 27) Updating the "Multiple Accounts" policy.
      • 28) Link spongebobia.wikia.com at www.spongebobia.com
      • 29) Emotions for users in chat

      Other things to discuss:

      • 1) Question of character links in episode articles
      • 2) Code for star ratings ([1])
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Wikia Spotlight

Random Wiki