Talk:Touhou Wiki/Archive 12

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Server Statistics Page Updated

I updated the Server Statistics page at User:Suzuran/Server_Statistics. If anyone wants something added to this, now would be the time to ask for it. --Suzuran (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2012 (EDT)

This month's status page update has been posted. --Suzuran (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

Re:Yousei Daisensou ~ Wiki Mainpage Restyling and Fairy Invasion

This got archived within minutes of me wanting to write a reply :'(

That aside, if people are suggesting to color the entire infoboxes their respective colors, I am all against it. That might create an eyesore for visitors on certain monitors. I know I've had people complain on a website that I used to be an administrator for about fully-colored textboxes before. Code Slasher (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Ah sorry about that. Anyway, the intro header, news box, and encyclopedia box were intended to stay blue, so they'd box in the other three sections. That way it's visually easier to separate the informational sections from the three main category boxes in one's mind. Momiji (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
I don't think he's talking about that, but my suggestion for game/music/book infoboxes on article pages to match the fairies' colors. But if a solid block is too much, the body could be left the same with just the header colors changed. Again, not of major importance, but is still one of those slight touches that adds something different. UTW 22:53, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
A solid block is exactly what I'm talking about. I can't support it unless it has a high degree of transparency and/or the color is extremely faded. Code Slasher (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2012 (EDT)

Lyrics_page_ideas

At Talk:Touhou_Wiki/Editor_Corner#Lyrics_page_ideas, I have made a few suggestions for our lyrics pages:

I'm trying to see if I can get more opinions on these ideas right now. --Sbluen (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Do we really need to ask for permission from http://unk0495.blog33.fc2.com? They don't exactly own the lyrics to the songs posted on there. Code Slasher (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
You're right. I would probably agree that you don't need their permission. But it may be best to include a link to any external website where the lyrics come from, and give credit to the transcriber. I'll have to see the the Touhou Wiki staff think about it though.--Sbluen (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

One important tool that might be useful is a database dump download link. That way, I won't have to worry about the effect of examining 1500 lyrics pages online several times.--Sbluen (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

Lua and WikiEditor

In case you're not aware, MediaWiki is working to move template scripting away from it's current hacked-up form. Instead, templates can now use Lua, which allows some pretty powerful scripting possibilities. I've gone ahead and installed the Lua enabling extension, the wiki now supports Lua 5.1. See here for more info on Lua scriping for MediaWiki.

My intention is to set up some skeleton template scripts on Pool that can be loaded and styled as needed by other wikis, possibly allowing for example a fully localized Lyrics template and whatnot.

I've also re-enabled WikiEditor, since it now includes code highlighting and indexing to help in Lua coding. If you see odd things on the wiki, make sure to clear your browser cache. Let me know if you have any issues. Momiji (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

One more thing, you can enable the Code Editor extensions to WikiEditor here. Momiji (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
Spoilers: Scribunto requires MW 1.20, which we're currently not running. Attempting to use the {{#invoke}} parser function right now will just get you a nice error to the face. With exception details enabled, it reads something like "Scribunto needs MediaWiki 1.20 or later (Preprocessor::SUPPORTS_INDEX_OFFSET)". For the time being, no Lua, at least until we test 1.20 internally. K (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
Alright, I whipped up a preliminary version of Module:Lyrics. Check out the following 3 test pages: User:K/LuaLyrics, User:K/LuaLyrics2, and User:K/LuaLyrics3. Additional testing and cleaning of module code is a work in progress. K (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
See User:K/Template:LyricsLua for the wrapper template that would replace Template:Lyrics. K (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
I've rewritten the Module:Lyrics to make the code a bit cleaner (at least for me) and fix the skipped params problem. More info and links here.
• DennouNeko–[ 08:41, 30 September 2012 (EDT)
Well, just wanted to add that lua version of Template:Navbox with few modifications is also ready as Module:Navbox. It would be good idea to do a bit more testing before changing the original template into a wrapper. A bit more info and few test cases are available at its talk page. • DennouNeko–[ 06:14, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
Update: Currently comparing the lua and template versions of navboxes at Navbox Compare. So far, so good. Suggestions and noticed bugs please report at its talk page.
BTW, I really wanted to thank for installing the Scribunto extension. Now it's possible to do tasks like automatic indexing and transclusions of subpages (example here, uses sclist).
• DennouNeko–[ 19:10, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

Not sure if it wasn't noticed, but just in case gonna mention it here. The Navbox template is locked, so wanted to ask someone with proper rights to switch the content with Lua wrapper for both {{Navbox}} and {{Navbox subgroup}} (guess it's better to do it simultaneously). New content and few notes are available at Navbox talk page.

• DennouNeko–[

talk
contribs

06:46, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Something that should make it a bit easier to browse through archived conversations: Module:Index (and wrapper, {{Index}}). Tested in on general page's archives in Talk:Touhou Wiki/Archive index. For now I'll add the index param to {{Archives}} template on this page, but feel free to remove it and delete that subpage if you don't like the idea.

• DennouNeko–[

talk
contribs

09:23, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Sorry about the delay, but the new Lua code for Navbox been rolled out onto the template. I'm looking at color changes to Infoboxes now, to match the Navbox type. Momiji (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2013 (EST)
For these it's probably best to use title color (from color table) in headerstyle and abovestyle, and background color in bodystyle (at least that's how it's used here and here), but feel free to play around with it.
• DennouNeko–[ 06:50, 28 January 2013 (EST)

collapsible and autocollapse

If I may, I'd like to request adding the support for "collapsible" and "autocollapse" classes, as described at MediaWiki page. It has the functionality of automatic collapsing the content when there are at least 2 (by default) elements with "autocollapse" class at one page, so for main pages (like The Grimoire of Marisa), that usually have more than one navbox and links to content, all navboxes would be collapsed, while for subpages the single navbox would be expanded by default. The built-in "mw-collapsible" doesn't support the autocollapse functionality.

• DennouNeko–[

talk
contribs

17:58, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, I had removed that functionality previously. Momiji (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
Hm... Not sure why. It seems that leaving it doesn't collide with the built-in "mw-collapsible". Oh well, no autocollapse then :p
Thanks for the info • DennouNeko–[ 13:42, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
I'm going to just assume any previous functionality we'd need now we can just implement with the new Lua-based templates. Momiji (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
Well, gotta admit that the Lua is going to be serious improvement and it allows to do many tasks that were impossible for the MediaWiki templates, like parsing some existing pages or unlimited number of arguments, but there are still some limitations. For example, it's still impossible to browse a category from a script, parse a special page like Special:PrefixIndex or detect another script. In case of lists of archives and similar tasks it means that the presence of subpages has to be checked one by one. In case of navboxes it would mean that all navboxes on one page would have to be generated by a single {{#invoke}} to simulate the autocollapse (note that we're generating the page that would have to be parsed to check how many navboxes there are).
Though I wouldn't mind if someone proved me wrong...
• DennouNeko–[ 15:42, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Top icon css styles

I'd like to request an addition to our default CSS files of the top icon style I have at User:Sbluen/vector.css. This is so that our top icon template can function and work like the one on Wikipedia. This will allow for further userpage customization and, if we eventually decide to have it, small featured article stars. --Sbluen (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Done. --WGH (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
Try to use touhou related images. For example, I use this image for Good Articles on the Dutch wiki.

Duplicates

I'm new to editing and forgot to check that there was already a version of Psyc-0006 banner200x40.png here already so I tried to delete the version I uploaded (because both are exactly the same) but instead I apparently reuploaded it so now there are three versions that are exactly the same and I have been stuck on what to do.

FS's title

is Suzunaan (すずなあん). Could someone who has the privilege fix it on the top page please? Thanks in advance. --Doncot (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Category Intersections

It looks like we can't use the category intersection here that works on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_intersection#Using_MediaWiki_search_to_find_category_intersections as you can see from the results at http://en.touhouwiki.net/index.php?search=incategory%3A%22Embodiment+of+Scarlet+Devil%22+incategory%3A%22Official+Games%22&title=Special%3ASearch. However, Wikipedia also discusses another way of getting it to work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_intersection#Semantic_Mediawiki. How well is that working out for us? --Sbluen (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2012 (EST)

uk spelling

OK so one spelling is only chosen by the original editor? OK I can accept that but why no switch-over like we got at Chinese wiki? VistaXP (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2012 (EST)

The Chinese language switch may specify completely different characters and whatnot. For English having a switch just to change 'favor/favour', 'color/colour', etc. would be unnecessarily complicated for a small change. What about Canadian English too? And don't get me started on Simple English and Cockney.
It was something I didn't exactly want to have to specify, but some people didn't exactly realize when issues should've been left alone. Please use en_US for English spelling, thanks. Momiji (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2012 (EST)
I have to add something: Don't change an English spelling if it has existed in one correct form for years. Refer to this for a better explanation. Code Slasher (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2012 (EST)
I'm wondering why you saying Cockney? Did I do wrong? VistaXP (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2012 (EST)
No, it wasn't you, it was someone else in the past. Momiji (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Name for Kanipan.

I believe the name of the A-One vocalist known as かにぱん。 or (V)·∀·(V), romanized as Kanipan., meaning "Sweet bun of crab figure" should have her name rewritten wherever it appears in this wiki. This way, we can remove the confusion and make it easier to search for her name. I would prefer using the name Kanipan., and perhaps creating an article under that name.

There is more information about this vocalist on her nicovideo accounts: main and announcements. --Sbluen (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Well I wouldn't say unifying her name as "Kanipan." on this wiki will work much since 1.) Using romaji is an alternation (compared to using the original wording). 2.) Because of (1), it's hard to keep the consistency of names being written on the pages on the wiki (we're even struggling on canon works about this matter, let alone fanwork pages...). At least, I'd agree to make her page as a portal though. Also if you really think you should write Jpn names in romaji for certain benefits (because this is not a matter of just Kanipan's name but for many other foreign names. I mean, if you want to talk about readability, don't you think ALL names in Japanese scripts should be converted into romaji?), I think there's a need to add the rule in the guidelines, to make us all follow the same rule (Touhou Wiki:Guidelines#Music_Article_Guidelines).--Doncot (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2013 (EST)
EDIT: This is a trivial thing but I think she's not a member of A-one (her blog). She is a solo-vocalist who occasionally joins in other doujin circle's works as far as I know.--Doncot (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2013 (EST)
I agree. I hope we can eventually do so and use that to link from songs Endless, Sleepless Night and Anything for You. And in her page, there should be links to NND accounts, her youtube account, and some other information from the Utaite Wiki page, as well as that page itself. --Sbluen (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2013 (EST)
Adamantly opposed. Her stage name is (V)·∀·(V), and forever will be (V)·∀·(V). Just look at the A-One websites. Also, trying to unify this is like trying to unify T. Stebbins with Odyssey. It isn't possible. Code Slasher (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2013 (EST)
The fact that we can't unify T. Stebbins with Odyssey doesn't mean we can't make one or two articles on the singer explaining the connections and purposes of the different names. It would be nice to clear up any confusion that way. --Sbluen (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2013 (EST)
My only solution is to use "(V)·∀·(V)" across the wiki and add a note on her page that she is usually known as Kanipan or something like that. As an avid fan of the eurobeat subgenre of Touhou (Touhou is basically a macrogenre in my book), I am not willing to budge much further than that. Code Slasher (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2013 (EST)
She does use "かにぱん" elsewhere as a username, like her Nicovideo, Twitter, and Youtube accounts. I'd rather keep the romanized form of her name as the article name, to ease in finding the article in the first place, otherwise you'll be forcing people to search for ASCII art article names. The Guidelines should be updated to reflect that. Momiji (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2013 (EST)

That still does not satisfy me. What would you do about T. Stebbins/Odyssey/Odyssey Music/Mortimer/...? Kannipan chose (V)·∀·(V) for a reason. Code Slasher (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Would you prefer to write her entries this way? (V)·∀·(V) (Kanipan.) and かにぱん (Kanipan.) depending on what the song's press release says. And as for this other person, how about Odyssey (T. Stebbins) and Mortimer (T. Stebbins).--Sbluen (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2013 (EST)
I suppose a redirect would work. Just please don't change the styled names to something that they aren't on the songs' pages. Code Slasher (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2013 (EST)
I'm sorry, but I'm still not quite convinced that any change is necessary. Perhaps you can give an additional reason? --Sbluen (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Kanipan. chose to be known as "(V)·∀·(V)" for her Touhou-related releases thus far, not "Kanipan." T. Stebbins chose "Mortimer & The DNA Team" for THE END and "Odyssey" for LUNATIC, yet he chose "T. Stebbins" for Rain Dance. This is my official source for explaining why he did that (it is in the comments).
These artists chose these aliases for a reason for each song. Therefore, we must honor these reasons. Q.E.D. Code Slasher (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Two things. First off, article names should be whatever common, easy-to-identify (and type) name the artist uses, not whatever random pseudonym they use for their latest release. Two, symbols of any kind should not be used in article names, especially ones that cannot be directly typed on a standard keyboard (See: Wikipedia:NCTR). If special names do need to be linked to, they should be in the form of a redirect. Even so, we already have some articles here that use symbols in their names, and they should probably be corrected (symbol-less main article with symbolled redirects). Momiji (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I suppose a redirect would work, but please do not change the styled names to something that they are not on the songs' pages. Code Slasher (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Touhou Wiki Projects

I've started a Wiki Project sort of plan with one or two people in the IRC chat. Right now we're working on Touhou Wiki:Project Characters, so leave your thoughts here or join us in IRC to talk about it! We're using the Characters project as a test run to see what we can do. Most of this came from Bulbapedia's way of doing it. ― Darkslime 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So, Projects have come to Touhou Wiki? I would suggest one for the official music, although it seems like most of the pages covering the official music have been completed. Code Slasher (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with that. The only thing the official cd's have are tracklists. I think it needs some more, deeper information. For example, a concept or something. For Trojan Green Asteroid some stuff could be written about all that Torifune stuff. ☢ Quwanti 22:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused. I was talking about music pages like Touhou Hisoutensoku/Music‎. Code Slasher (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Haha, but yeah, you're right. Official music pages, official literature pages, main game articles, and translations are all projects that are quite possible. If you'd like to start one of them in the way that we did the Characters one, be my guest. :) ― Darkslime 14:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a Touhou Wiki:Project Translations project. I'm still working on most of the editing guidelins/article structure, so any help would be appreciated. We're tossing around the idea in IRC to transclude character profiles on their pages; this way it will be easy to make the character profiles part of the project (else it would be in two projects) and we can also split up the profiles by game, so that each game can have its own dedicated character profile section. ― Darkslime 15:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I would add my name to the list as a grammar editor (if you allow that), but I would be too scared in fixing the grammar in some cases because I might mess up a joke that ZUN was going after, thus making it "lost in translation." Code Slasher (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That is totally fine! Some of the translations are rampant with grammatical errors, so be my guest. Ideally we'll be moderating it on our end, so if you do edit some meaning out, we'll be able to catch it. Maybe note on the list that you're just doing that, and not translation, so people know not to contact you for that. ― Darkslime 13:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to start "Project Print Works", if there are some volunteers, of course. In my opinion, these print work pages lacks a lot of information, mainly about the books. For me, it would look much better if they start look like a game page. I already did this to the Dutch wiki (Forbidden Scrollery), which I think looks okay to me. Short introduction, section about production and concept, a summarize about the story and a press section or something. Details about each chapter could go to a subsection. This all to make it more informative and such. ☢ Quwanti 01:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Theme of the Wiki

Hey everyone, I know some of us in IRC have talked about this in the past, but I think the wiki is long overdue for a bit of sprucing up. I'm not talking anything major - just a nice background and header would do. I figured I'd get some opinions, since I'm no designer, and the more I think about it the more I have no idea what to do! So I'd like to open this discussion again. ― Darkslime 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think something red-white as main colours could work. Of course, the red shouldn't be too present. The background could be small yin-yang orbs or something? I'm not a designer either but I will try to work something out.
EDIT: Something like this. Of course, colours could change 'n stuff. And then made by an actual designer. ☢ Quwanti 01:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think medium-sized watermarked yin-yangs on the background would look okay. Maybe some sort of colour scheme? Can't really tell until we see it. I don't have any ideas for a header. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
This wiki needs "sprucing up"? Not in my opinion. We already added some things to the main page. I would hate to see this wiki go much further than that. It would ruin the professionalism in my opinion. For example, Bulbapedia is pushing it. Code Slasher (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
My example would be the Kingdom Hearts wiki. They personalized it a lot, but still has a professional look, imo. ☢ Quwanti 23:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that some things to the main page were added, my idea of sprucing up would not fall under the same kind of stylistic additions as the fairies. I'm aiming for keeping a relatively consistent style. Compare to the addition of lightly coloured headers/backgrounds. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Also with this remake, I was wondering if the pictures I commissioned from the artist abstractcatus aka makku would be any interest to the community. I know Leo was working on some as well. They can be found on here and come complete with favicons. ♥★♦ (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Whatever other language wikis decide for themselves, Russian wiki is pretty OK with its current logo. --Coyc (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, but in my opinion Bulbapedia is pushing it because of all their roundy borders and bright colors on everything. The only thing I was suggesting was tweaking the background color from the boring gray it is now, and maybe adding a nice header. ― Darkslime 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I could possibly agree to new logos (I think we do not own our current logo's source, if I remember correctly) and favicons, but not necessarily new main color schemes, and do not even get me started on backgrounds. If we are going to use the logos from that Dropbox... makes me wish that the German Wiki's new logo was our new logo, lol. (What >.> <.<? I like Aya.) Code Slasher (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Aya logo is relevant for the German wiki due to Aya basically sharing the primary colors of the flag of Germany. Alice mostly does for the primary English speaking countries (The US, The UK and by extension Australia and NZ, Canada), assuming one considers her outfit to be mostly red, white, and blue. I had also suggested Mokou for the Polish wiki for similar reasons. You could also say the same about the Dutch wiki logo, Suika being the Netherlands (red/white/blue clothes plus orange hair and two horns) and Flandre being well, Flanders. And Meiling is obvious. Momiji (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
At this time, I actually prefer minor theme changes over new logos. My general impression is that our readers are more indifferent to colour changes, etc than to art changes. Then again, what matters more IMO is that any sort of aesthetic change is 'done right'. For example, when the wiki rolled off to a fresh new start, it took several iterations of Frontpages before we came upon one that was acceptable, both in terms of layout and colour (as a side note, the zh wiki still uses the other colour variant). What came out of that was a wiki that looked more organized, but still came off looking like the old Touhou Wiki.
If we take a look at the current situation now, among our readers, there is more controversy surrounding the inclusion of the fairies than the colour changes. I think that, at least regarding the en wiki logo, we shouldn't change it right now. Changing the background is more volatile, yes, but just as long as we don't do something completely inane (I don't think I need to go into details here), and we get feedback on aesthetics, we should be fine. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think that current background-less theme looks clean and clear, and I'd stick to that (similar with color scheme). Well, guess that small banner on the top of page wouldn't hurt.
As for logo, editors on Polish TW agreed on Mokou, but currently we don't have own artist, so if these logos are/will be approved then there should be no problems on our side.
• DennouNeko–[ 13:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
How about we use Nazeo's suggestion for the Polish wiki, provided that the owner consents? I know I am not a Polish wiki user, but I think it would be a good idea. Code Slasher (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the wiki logos, I'd also add that the Swedish logo is relevant because the artist (Makku) deduced that Shou was chosen because it appeared she is hushing which is line with the phrase "En svensk tiger," which can either mean "A Swedish tiger" or "A Swede keeps quiet." The one for Ukrainian and Portuguese I'll be honest; I guessed on. I always can commission different photos if so decided. I'd also like to point out that all are holding books in keeping with theme. ♥★♦ (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in articles

So much to talk about today! I wanted to talk about spoilers in articles. I'm of the opinion that, at this point, if it's not something regarding Hopeless Masquerade or *maybe* the ending to Oriental Sacred Place, it shouldn't be using the spoiler tags. The articles look horrible with them in there. I understand that a lot of them detail what happens in the endings in the games, but some of these games are a decade old. I think it's time to fix this. ― Darkslime 18:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that spoilers need to go, though mostly because a wiki is supposed to be a place to look up information. For example, in character page articles, anybody wanting to look up relationships, whether for producing fanworks or debating, is likely to want to know the whole jist about it anyways, including endings. The information is under subheadings anyways, so obviously you also don't look up the story/plot if you don't want to be spoiled by it.
As DS also noted, many of the details are also very old. Most people already know for example, that the Hakurei Shrine gets torn down twice in SWR. I would be in favour of removing spoilers up to material less than 1 year old. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to be condescending again, but maybe we should keep some of these spoiler tags, especially ones that do not contain essential information for other games. Think about it: what if a person wants to look up general information about a character before they start playing the game that they get introduced in? Code Slasher (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I counter that you're already spoiling yourself by looking up the characters in the first place. For example, at the time of TD's demo release, both Yuyuko's appearance as stage 1 boss and Kogasa's reappearance as stage 3 midboss could be considered spoiler material. Forums don't seem to dispute this. On Miko's article, information on Byakuren's true intent could be considered spoilers too. Neither are spoilered on the wiki itself. What kind of information are you suggesting is important enough that warrants spoilers?
In all seriousness, anyone who doesn't want to spoil him or herself shouldn't be actively searching up information in the first place. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I am referring to looking up general statistics. One spoiler that maybe should not be spoiled could be as follows: "Byakuren liked Marisa's direct personality, and in thanks for Marisa's help in breaking the seal, instructed Minamitsu Murasa to take Marisa to and from Makai whenever Marisa wanted." Code Slasher (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The information mentioned is found under Marisa's article under Relationships - Byakuren and is from a UFO ending. I'm still not sure what purpose a spoiler would serve in that case; the reader knows that the information contains info on Byakuren, so if he or she hasn't played UFO, he or she shouldn't really be reading it. As far as I know, the only spoilers that do exist are for game endings, and I believe this is more due to an extension of trying to apply ZUN's ending policy not to reveal endings than genuinely concealing spoilers from the reader. I may be wrong however, but my opinion still stands that a wiki's primary purpose is to inform, hence spoilers are unnecessary. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Kiefmaster99 here. That bit about Byakuren is an interesting piece of information that not even I knew. If someone hasn't cleared a game, they should, in general, know that the wiki will spoil them, just in the same way looking up the Wikipedia article for an anime or TV program they're watching might possibly spoil them as to endings and stuff. I can't agree with keeping those spoilers behind tags, as we are meant to be an informational wiki. Also, I don't quite understand your "general statistics" division. ― Darkslime 14:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"General statistics" would be referring to information that you could find in infoboxes, or even information that you could find in the "General Information" section of articles, such as Reimu_Hakurei#General_Information. Perhaps this is a stupid argument, though, as you guys are right about our wiki trying to be an informational wiki. Code Slasher (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Last call before de-spoilering is green-lit. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Would it help putting spoiling information in a separate subpage? That way it'll make it easy for people who want to avoid it to do so, but also make spoiler tags unnecessary. Momiji (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is a viable solution. This is an unbiased source of information, not something that should try to cater to various individuals' needs for spoilers. It would create too much unnecessary clutter and organizational problems. ― Darkslime 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a period one year, the release of the next game, or infobook type release such as Symposium (released less than a year after TD, but discusses its characters freely and references endings) before spoiling things is fair. Non-ending game stuff, literature and manga, CD stories, should continue without. So, as of now, nothing would be spoilered, but whenever HM is released, that would be. UTW 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think one year is a bit much. Like you said, stuff comes along more quickly than that anyway, and I have a feeling anyone who likes Touhou will have gotten their hands dirty with a new game/CD/book in a far shorter time than a year. I think six months after full release or release of a new game/infobook would be a more effective time period. ― Darkslime 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't really agree with moving spoiling information onto a separate subpage. I'm concerned that it will fragment the article, plus we now have a subpage full of loose facts.
I'm perfectly fine with a six-month limit. If I had it my way, I'd have none. That being said, ideally, translation patches should be released before the spoilers expire. Barring what happened with MoF, TL patches generally take around a month to release, so it shouldn't be a major problem. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I second the comments about article fragmentation, but concerning the time limit, consider that the time limit is either one year or the release of the next official media. We would not have a problem with that time period. Code Slasher (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
With that (sort off) conclusion, I think there should be a spoiler policy written regarding spoilers.
Also, then we might want to use this template more often rather than the Hidetext template. Is much more reader friendly, too. ☢ Quwanti 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
With no further comments, consensus states that articles need to become despoilered. As there is a split regarding the duration, the more conservative of the two will be used (i.e. one year). As UTW mentioned, as of now, this means stripping spoilers from everything. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about what should be an absolute maximum. But yeah, I was looking and give or take a few days, there's usually a year between games anyway. So that seems excessive and unnecessary now. Maybe 6-9 months or something in that range is fair and is as low as I'd go. UTW 03:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of the fairies

There wasn't enough time to discuss or vote on whether the front page fairies should stay before the discussion was archived. A lot of people elsewhere have voiced their distaste for the fairies and bright colors.

I appreciate that Leo took the effort to make them, but I think there should be a proper vote on whether they should stay. --RemoveTheFairies (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in support of the work Sefam, K, and Leo put into the redesign. Old one was too boring imo. There was also quite a lot of discussion about it. Personally I think we could change it MORE, but this was an improvement.OverCoat (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! Calling out the staff, are we? You did read all of this, right? It may be non-Wikipedia-like, but at least it is not going over the top. Code Slasher (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary [you were replying to me, right?], I think the redesign is cute and nice, etc, and my call for even further customization of the theme isn't important/popular/needed now, so I'm not pushing for it. Cleaning up article text is a bigger priority. On another note, since this account was obviously made for the sole purpose of stirring this issue up AGAIN, and RemoveTheFairies is probably not going to do anything else with that account, I think we can safely ignore this post. I haven't actually seen criticism about the design beyond the constructive criticism seen here, and a flame thread on a forgotten imageboard that maybe 3 regulars visit.OverCoat (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
If you, as well as me, prefer a plain & simple design for wiki, I would recommend for you using personally an add-on "Adblock Plus" for Mozilla Firefox. --masuo64 Talk 11:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you block images on every other website? Momiji (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
While I also prefer neater designs for a wiki much like Masuo64, I am hesitant to revisit this due to the apparent consensus established half a year ago. If there is more support for removal, perhaps.
On the note of "Adblock Plus". I do not think it is fair to have to ask our readers to resort to a third-party solution if they don't like the fairies. The same reasoning could be used to approve such designs in the future, and I would rather have a consensus-based solution where most, if not all, users are happy with the design, rather than telling the minority to shove it. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I just had an epiphany. Is that the same "consensus" that you get hit with when you try to correct obvious mistranslations, the one that made one common phrase stay unchecked for half a year despite everyone realizing it's gibberish? Everyone collectively deciding to do nothing? Because I honestly don't care what you guys put on the front page, but I'm just now realizing I probably should. Strength of opinion should never be a metric of its validity. And I hate to be the child in this "Wiki's New Clothes" tale, but if no one else wants to say it... Those fairy scribbles are ugly and poorly made. There, this wasn't hard.
And of course we don't need third party solutions, wiki engine itself allows customization. Nothing stops anyone from adding a fairy "skin" for people who want it (or fairy-less one for those who don't). It's solely the matter of whether the regular readers and first-time visitors should be subjected to this unflattering design choice. So how about listening to the readers, rather than making them jump through unnecessary hurdles (registration) just to voice their opinion, and then disregarding it because they registered just to say it? The wiki is the sole common ground for the disjointed western Touhou fanbase. Keep it that way, rather than becoming just another small, closed and self-centered community. This kinda requires being as plain and unoffensive as possible. NekoScarlet (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Except, you know, the actual consensus reached for this particular discussion. So I do not see this "small, closed and self centered community" you speak of. The comparison you made is not comparable because the translation one never did reach a consensus while this one did. I do agree that 3rd party solutions is in no way expected or ideal for readers, but my point of contention is if this is so offensive, then why were those points not made in this discussion? Yeah, there is the registration thing, but if there was such a strong opinion on it, a couple minutes of time does not seem so bad especially since it's one time you must register. From what I understand, the registering was done to keep down spam/advertising. Strength of opinion does not make sense to me because everyone in that discussion had an equal say, it was 4 to 2... There is merit for what you said for readers registering just to voice their opinion and not being regular editors but the issue there is sock/meatpuppeting. In addition, don't think it's fair to complain after the decision is made because of the chance supplied for rebuttal. This was a mainpage talk, where all major plans are discussed. I'm not saying opinions can not change, it's just is disappointing that the people who are speaking now for wanting the fairies removed are... well speaking now. ♥★♦ (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
And so adamantly. I am with Nazeo on this one, and no, they are not ugly. They could have been a whole lot worse.
My first reply was actually directed towards RemoveTheFairies. Code Slasher (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all of us editors want this wiki to be the professional repository of Touhou knowledge. The reason I support keeping the fairies on the main page is that I believe this would help invite potential editors who would be turned off by a more formal presentation we previously had. Personally, I don't mind if we plastered fairies, oni, tengu, and shrine maidens all over the wiki; I don't think such additions would distract from the content of our articles.
Nonetheless, I was wondering if there is the possibility of having an add-on where you can add the fairies if you choose that option. I don't remember if that issue was raised before, but I imagine the reason why it hasn't appeared already is because of various technical issues I have no idea of. However, I really hope we don't have to implement this.
The Touhou universe is based almost entirely on doujinshi, which are created by fans who are seriously dedicated to their art and create it for the enjoyment of everyone. I think our wiki should acknowledge that aspect of Touhou, and the fairies do a good job in emphasizing that. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

@NekoScarlet re: Consensus. The "Ability to the Extent of" issue was a bit of a trainwreck for us. The primary editor at that time was also taking the initiative. Normally, edit warring would lead to reversions to before the edit. Also, as Nazeo pointed out, I was expecting criticism to flow into the Talk pages when the fairies were launched. Unfortunately, the reality is that registration is needed to stop automated spam. It hasn't prevented criticism from reaching the wiki before though (e.g. front page redesigns).

In any case, since there is now enough new opposition, a new consensus must be established on what to do with them. We have several options, as some editors have pointed out:

1. Keep.
2. Removal
2a. Move to a "skin"
2b. Redesign

- Kiefmaster99 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, based on my experiences in the past half year, I am now in opposition to the fairies. I was lukewarm to it in the past, but, given the amount of complaints I have encountered, I would rather have an alternate design or none at all.
The first reason is that such an 'attractive' design is unnecessary to lure in editors. Wikipedia has made it throughout the years with a comparatively clean minimalist design; I don't see why we need the fairies either.
The second is that we may stand to lose some with the design. Contrary to what some of us may think, in that the design is intended to be inviting, there are a subset of readers and editors who are turned off by such images - those who value 'professionalism'. For them, the design has gone over the top. In the best case scenario, they suck it up and edit regardless. In the worst case, they forsake the wiki and give up (since the other one is a much worse offender). Regardless, I would rather remove the design to not offend them, rather than keep the design, and while it may make the wiki look more attractive, has negligible impact on those who like it. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The old-timers here know about my stance on professionalism, but I must respectfully abstain from voting (although I do oppose 2a-2b). I have grown used to them. Code Slasher (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I am starting to doubt if polls can be helpful in times like this because in my own experience I observe that it is the editors who edit the most frequently that are the ones who participate in these polls as opposed to more occasional users like RemoveTheFairies. Thus it ends up as a debate consisting of mostly old-timers and frequent editors and very few of the people outside that small circle. In the ability debate, the response from everyone was quick and vicious; here I am baffled why it took so long for the opposition to organize themselves.
But for the sake of this poll, I'll put in a vote for 1 (keeping the fairies). I personally feel professionalism shouldn't be an issue because it refers to the quality of the content of the articles and the addition of the fairies is purely an aesthetic concern that shouldn't affect how anyone judges the actual content. I also personally find this opposition to having the fairies on the Main page in particular silly since the Main page is simply a hub to all the content of which we take professional pride in. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
As of now, it's not so much of polling (unless there is overwhelming support for one solution), but more of an attempt to see if we can come to some common solution. Regarding participation, yes, it is an issue and one that cannot be solved so easily. I do expect editors to consider the fanbase at large (as was in the case for Phantom/Ghost) though in their reasoning. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, here is how I look at it. Option 1 already seems to draw opposition ( very late if I may add ) and telling them to stuff it doesn't seem very productive, but I can not agree with Option 2 due to the effort that was put into planning, coding, and of course, the drawing itself. Option 2b would essentially be starting over, something I'm sure none of the editors want to due to the feeling of having wasted time. So Option 2a is looking the most reasonable solution, return to the default frontpage ( without fairies ) and make a skin that is selectable in Preferences. It bothers me because the original intent with the fairies was to bring in more readers to spice up the drab looking wiki, but I guess this will remain a treat for editors (if people agree at any rate). ♥★♦ (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm addressing a lot here, but bear with me. I'm slightly concerned about who these vague "lot of people elsewhere" who hate the fairies and bright colors so much are. Not that there aren't some. I'm just saying, most of the complaints I've seen come from, and I quote, "circle-jerking, samefagging" anonymous threads on Poosh and 4chan and the like. Just how many are actually dissatisfied is difficult to corroborate when we should be taking actual verifiable, legitimate numbers into account. As far as I'm concerned it's more likely a very vocal extreme minority. Unfortunately for them, as I said, that doesn't carry as much weight as individually coming here to state their concerns, vote on what they like or don't, and making a difference that way. And even a poll on the frontpage or off-site could be easily manipulated.
Also, while many of the concerns are fair and about the design in particular, including the contrast of the fairies to the rest of the page, and whether his style fits, there are also many which are personally insulting either towards Leo himself or us and peppered with cursing and sometimes outright hysteria, which I don't think helps their case either.
Professionalism, meh. I believe I said it before, but our professionalism reflects through our articles. If anything is turning someone off from the site, to put it bluntly, it's not our design. Not even a design, really. Just a minor element which is completely non-obtrusive and so far only appears on the main hub, which someone likely only spends 30 seconds at a time on, anyway. If fairies and characters were all over, on every page, and littered with a multitude of colored boxes, this might be valid, but we've seen fit to not do that to this point.
Even then, as I believe someone brought up in the past, Bulbapedia does that and I dare anyone to say they're not professional. Personally speaking, I think we could go halfway between and be a little more creative with our design than we currently are. Touhou itself is fun, creative and colorful with exuberant personalities, and we could probably do a better job at reflecting that, while still looking clean, neat and good and not like the Wikia's design. Though realistically it is superfluous and not necessarily needed when we could definitely be concerning ourselves with article quality instead.
Anyway, despite what I said, since there is this apparent concern out there, Option 2a is fair. It kind of sucks that it was intended to be fun and inviting for visitors, but isn't doing its job to some, and must be relegated to a skin, but it seems like the easiest, most satisfying solution for all. Anyway, I don't know if it's possible, but for visitors who don't want to register, but we want to make aware of the skin and have them use it if they want, maybe the fairy skin could be default, but they could choose to remove the fairies through a one-time pop-up and cookie setting instead. UTW 03:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem with the fairies is the fact that they make me feel a bit uncomfortable when looking at this site in a public place, like a computer lab or a library. At the moment, I am undecided on this issue. --Sbluen (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
A complaint I've heard several times is that people thought the wiki isn't supposed to have pictures on the front page like this. Many people didn't care about the controversy of the Wikia's policies back in the day, so they thought the whole point of the division from Wikia was because they were using Remilia background that was "too unprofessional" and showed character bias rather than representing Touhou as a whole. I do remember that being one of the major points of criticism in threads demonizing the Wikia back in the day, so I think that may be a major reason why some people reacted so negatively to these fairy pictures. --Moekou 13:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me just say, my opinion on complaints about the fairies is about the same as UTW's. The complaints I've heard about the fairies haven't been in any sort of constructive form at all, but in drive-by posting here, anonymous rants on Poosh, or someone randomly PMing me on IRC 'the fairies are "xxx", remove them now, thanks'. Thus why I put absolutely no weight into 'opinions' about the fairies. That and I've sensed some intense dislike at Leo in general, so I almost think there's someone a couple people nursing a personal grudge against him.

Two, as far as the reasonings behind leaving Wikia, the style changes were one but not necessarily about adding any specific styling to the site. Wikia was forcing all of their wikis to use their new proprietary Mediawiki style (Oasis) instead of anything else, which complicated things greatly because it's completely different and invasive compared to Vector and Monobook. The site now is almost entirely stock Vector, and there's absolutely no desire to change from that since a lot of Mediawiki is tied around use of Vector or other default MW styles. And as far as the 'absolutely no images' argument, if you're that worried about people seeing the fairies on a public computer, what happens when you browse to any of the other articles on the site that have images? Do you browse in Links?

Call my arguments straw-men, but historically the responses I've seen about any style changes on the site, no matter how heavy or light, have been met with hysterical opposition. Even when other sites do much much more to their styles. Momiji (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I can personally relate to where Sbluen is coming from. When my older sister found me working on my Touhou fangame, she asked something along the lines of "Why are you making girls in Victorian dresses fight each other?" (It was a fight between Remilia and someone else, lol). Since then, I feel like I have to be somewhat cautious when dealing with Touhou, especially while in computer labs. How do you think die-hard Pokemon fans (or even more extreme, bronies) feel when they look up information in a public place? Code Slasher (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made an account for the sole purpose of objecting to this talk of removing the faeries. They add an excellent personal touch to this wiki. If you people want bland go back to the wikia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradroid (talkcontribs) 21:15, 13 March 2013

Are you people stupid? Seriously. The arguments in favour of keeping the horrid design choices you people have taken over this period make no sense. Some of you are saying to keep the current design because of all the work that was put into it. Would you drive a car with square wheels just because of all the work that went into making the wheels' finishing touches? If it looks bad, useless and overall an eyesore you scrap it altogether. You reflect on the absurdly long time you allegedly spent on it and on how you were incapable of stepping back for one moment and thinking "wait... should we really be doing this?" and move on, hopefully that much more wiser -- Others are claiming that people only want the fairies out of the front page due to some sort of personal grudge against the author. You are mistaking cause with effect. That artist, and I'm using the word in it's widest sense, was hardly even known outside whatever inner circle of whatever branch of the touhou fandom some of the people running this wiki apparently belong to. People only noticed him thanks to the abortion he has splattered all over the wiki's front page. I know that's my case. If they hate him, it's because of that. Had he kept quiet and made his scribbles in the comfort of his blog, no-one not interested in what he offers would form any kind of opinion about him. Personally I only took his artwork (again, widest sense of the word) as a curious tidbit floating around the world-wide-web. I only realized what monster this person is way too late, once I checked the wiki's front page in the first day of the "fairy invasion". Are you really that desperate to lure in more editors? Think about the kind of people that kind of design is attracting; certainly not the "professional" people you claim so much to want. Hell, if anything, it attracts people into making accounts just so they can tell you what awful people you lot are for deciding on keeping those sad excuses for drawings for so long. I know that's my case. Day after day I thought to myself that you'd come to your senses. Day after day I'm greeted with drawings so bad you wouldn't find on the bottom percentile of pixiv's touhou branch (and admittedly those earn a sort of cuteness once you realize the authors are six-year-old kids; I dare not wonder the age of the fairy artist). A reminder of a community that seems to be driven into translating and providing information not for the joy of sharing, but fuelled by prospects of ego e-masturbation. Please please PLEASE get a clue. I vote for taking it down. I'm also placing here a vote for NOT replacing the Alice logo. God knows that daft idea will run through your mind sooner or later. Forgive my harshness but I've been bottling it in for a big long while now. I am as big an outsider as they come and dare say the closest thing you'll get to someone who accesses the wiki without any ties to the western touhou fandom who bothered enough to make an account to make one post in a page he stumbled upon. I'll keep out of any other talk pages for the sake of my mental well-being. Best of luck to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KURUKURU (talkcontribs) 21:28, 13 March 2013

No name calling please. Keep all discussions civil and please leave signatures on your comments. Thank you. DeltaSierra4 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
My my, that's a lot of words. Really angry ones at that. Don't do that, please. Oh well, at least the kindest part of the message was bolded. And yes, please leave a signature with your messages. Just simply add ~~~~ to the end of a message, and it'll automatically sign the message for you. I also noticed that you registered within the past few hours. Enjoy your stay here at Touhou Wiki! K (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it would have been just as effective, but less hostile, to have said that you have a very strong preference for option 2 due to a personal dislike for the pictures. Anyways, I'm happy to see your opinion and I do agree that the pictures aren't professional quality.--Sbluen (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Holy shit, dude. I'm posting on a wiki about a Japanese doujin game series... and I'm thinking you need to get a life. It's very clear you just have a personal vendetta against Leo, and that all these new accounts are just your friends or your clones. I'm sorry, but what the fuck did he do to you to make you so angry?OverCoat (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, all this over a couple of little fairies? Well, since people want to be professional, I vote that we replace all fairy art with the official art done by the man behind Touhou himself, ZUN. (I dare you to call ZUN not a professional). If ZUN hasn't drawn art for that fairy, then it should be replaced with a fairy that ZUN did draw. As far as I am aware, the only fairy that ZUN drew that we have on file is Cirno. Thus all fairies should be replaced with ZUN's official drawing of Cirno. After this, the front page of the wiki will be so COOL that only a true baka would complain about it. TiamatRoar (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there are images known ZUN has drawn of Luna and Sunny, too.
Now for just the seriousness. While I'm personaly not that fond of the fairies, I still like the idea of "personalizing" the wiki more. I've seen some great examples of wiki's which personalized it so hell while still looking personal. I don't see how it would be impossible for the touhou wiki. I think, though, for such thing we should note some (sort of) profesional on webdesign. ☢ Quwanti 16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any issue with Leo's art itself, but I don't think it gels well with the page around it (and the associations with the headings are weak; what does Luna have to do with music?), so I'll have to go with Option 2b. If you want other personalisation ideas, maybe a "bubble" on the left of each heading-banner containing a portrait of a related Touhou character? Something like this (it's meant to be Kosuzu; pretend I can draw). It adds something without taking attention away from the text. --Prime32 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Allow me to analyze the "points" brought up. So your ( your being KURUKURU ) first argument is that we are confusing said arguments with "cause and effect" with people having a personal vendetta against Leo... and then you personally insult Leo yourself therefore losing all creditability. Your next argument is along the lines of we probably should not do these designs because it attracts people to actually weigh in. Sorry that we allow people to give their opinions? Sorry that's how things are done around here? I do stress that value is placed in well made arguments... and not whatever you just posted. In the end, for a person who claims to desire to have professionalism... you do not display at all the proper way to convene an argument. I mean, you really expect to have what you said to have any merit after insulting Leo, the editors, and the readers of the wiki as well?
tl;dr You just proved UTW correct in everything that was said in that post.
I suggest the opposition bring in new points that have not been brought up before. As of now, your side has displayed only one point which is "We do not care for the design" and that's already strongly being opposed by the majority... like last consensus.
P.S. I suggest you read this for the logos. We can't keep that logo due to possible future copyright implications due to it coming from Moedan from D.N.A. Softwares. It will be undoubtedly a pleasure to have "opinions" about that as well. ♥★♦ (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Since people are starting to resort to vitriol and sarcasm, I'm thinking we should wrap this conversation up and take action. (And before anyone complains about how there wasn't enough time to hold a proper vote, I should note that this talk section and the poll have lasted about twice as long as the original discussion about the fairies.) I'll take the time to post some preliminary results:
  • Option 1 (Keep the fairies): Ibaraki Ibuki, paradroid
  • Option 2 (Remove the fairies): Kiefmaster99, kurukuru
  • Option 2a (Keep the fairies as a "skin"; users who don't like the fairies can opt out of not using the skin): Kiefmaster99, Nazeo, UTW
  • Option 2b (Remove the fairies and restart the redesign discussion): Prime32
  • Option 2c (Replace fairies with ZUN art): TiamatRoar (though possibly in favor of 1 and/or 2a)
  • Abstaining: Code Slasher (against 2a and 2b), Momiji, OverCoat (favors the fairies), Sbluen, masuo64 (apparently doesn't want to keep the fairies), NekoScarlet (doesn't like the fairies, but possibly in favor of 2a)
I feel that although the vote appears evenly divided, most people (including those who are abstaining) seem to favor 2a. (Though if I didn't accurately express your preference, please edit this post to correct me.) Although I personally prefer 1, I do feel 2a is a reasonable alternative. Thus if we can conclude this poll soon, I feel we should consider working on a fairy "skin". Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I am thoroughly... afraid, if not disgusted, by most of the anti-fairy crowd. It gives me bad memories of when I joined a certain famous Touhou forum. I was chased off of it within a week of joining for posting my Touhou fangame. The Touhou fans can be a rowdy bunch, eh?
As such, and with the continued survival of this wiki in mind, I must change my vote to Option 2. Code Slasher (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I was going to wait until after the weekend. But if we want to wrap this up now, then Option 2a is a reasonable alternative given the arguments from both sides. What UTW suggested is a fair compromise; although this would have to also be accessible to non-registered users as well, via cookies or something. That being said, it's a bit of a throwback to the "Go use AdBlock then", and while that would seem simple, others have raised the issue of using 3rd-party solutions. For them at least, "out of sight, out of mind".
Also, while our professionalism does shine better through our articles, even when we shouldn't, we all still judge books by their covers. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. A skin would not change that fact though for those that are too lazy to change it for themselves or will not join the site. Some Internet users (like me unless I am forced to accept them) block cookies. Thus, I believe that if we are to make it a skin, we should make the default skin with no fairies at all.
P.S.: this discussion is absolutely massive. It half crashes my browser every time I submit something. Could we please archive at least part of this? Code Slasher (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That was my impression to have the fairies moved to another skin that is selectable by registered users. As I said, a treat for editors. Archiving should wait until this discussion is concluded ( which I feel is soon ) ♥★♦ (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The fairies are going nowhere.

I've had enough of the griping over the images. Although I do promote collaboration here and I like gathering consensus over decisions, this is still technically my site and as far as everything goes, I will still exercise final say over things when I feel there's tendentious activities going on.

That's it. No more chewing over this. This horse is officially dead.

Momiji (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't judge book by its cover. It's the content that makes it worth reading.

The discussion about fairies was one of the longest I've seen on all talk pages I've browsed so far. It seems that all participants were seriously concerned about professionalism. Now I'd like to ask to help with recently created projects, Project Characters and Project Translations. This will help the professionalism way more than arguing about few fairies on a page that rarely gets listed in search engines. This goes to both, recently registered users and older ones that weren't very active recently.

• DennouNeko–[

talk
contribs

22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yay, I get to finally comment. I'm the person who initiated the changes to add the fairies to the frontpage. In fact, I didn't ask for many people's opinions for one reason: You guys are never there when I need to do something that requires action. It takes months to have any form of approval on this wiki. In fact, this change has been live for months, and you started complaining formally about it just now.

The first complaints I've had about this redesign was about how the drawings were not ANIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMEEEEEEEEEEEEE enough (For those concerned, the name of the artstyle is manga you f****** idiots, not anime) and too AMERICAN (Considering that this is made by a guy who lives in Brazil who has trouble even coming to America to con, that's quite the bold and ironic statement). I asked people to bring me non-stolen ANIME art to replace the fairies, and up to now, nobody brought anything.

For everybody else, I do apologize for the inconvenience, I have lowered the brightness of the colors when a few people complained to me about how bright the colors were. Now, if you still have a problem with the brightness, I suggest you lower the gamma setting of your monitor or buy a new monitor, I tried on 5 different displays (Two ASUS monitors, one macbook pro retina, an old acer monitor, and a HTC one X) and it looks just fine.

However, when you refer to anecdotal evidence such as "Our readers run away because they don't like the fairies", you should show numbers. I want to have a survey with actual numbers, with people that visit the site and that you DO NOT solicit personally, and people that are not wiki staff/editors.

Now, if you want to have an alternative theme, it's possible, although I think it's a waste of time. In fact, you can just edit your user css to remove the fairies if they annoy you so.

--Sefam (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate for a bunch of loose ends to remain. Therefore, I'm going to address points raised by both sides without regard to the outcome in conclusion, most of which touch upon future discussion in general.
Overall I still wonder why it took six months for sufficient opposition to be mounted against the images. But consensus can change.
Aesthetics It is in my opinion that issues of aesthetics are better resolved with actual specific points (i.e. style doesn't fit). That can't really stop people though from simply commenting whether they like it or not though, as it boils down to individual taste. Or the difference between dark blue and light. Personally, I don't think any art could work.
Non-regular Opinions I am going to side with NekoScarlet here in even permitting non-regulars to contribute opinions. The wiki should not isolate itself from the wider Touhou community. This had happened in other substantial TL debates; the same should not be applied any differently here.
On a similar note, to ask for actual numbers with an informal survey is practically impossible, as it can be perceived as flawed (or perhaps someone can enlighten me with an agreeable method). The closest you're going to get are opinions/polls recorded on Talk pages.
Consensus There are safeguards available when trying to measure consensus, restrictive as they may be. The most restrictive is to limit consensus/decision-making to regular editors only, eliminating potential sockpuppeting/ballot stuffing. Even amongst our own editorship, and not just the outside community, opinion is split down the middle.
Civility Of course, it is much preferred if both sides refrained from uncivil comments, as they are less likely to be considered seriously.
Artist As much hate as he may be receiving, it's irrelevant. The art needs to be judged on its own merit. Also, any existing effort put into the art must also be considered as a sunk cost.
To Sefam I am unable to find any attempt at discussion.planning on any Talk Page. If there was, please point to it. I also wish to question why you think the fact it can take a long time to reach consensus is a good reason to sidestep the whole process. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh the noes. Informal survey: Put up a survey on the front page and visitors will answer. Simple, right?
I'm not going to be nice when people flop side things like "I'm unable to find attempt at any planning". When we rolled out the infoboxes, NOBODY HELPED update some of the profiles but a very few of us, and trying to ask for advice results in getting no answers for months. So push comes to shove, you have to commit the changes regardless of if people will like it or not. I'm surprised people are complaining about this SIX MONTHS after this patch came out, and we've worked on it for 2 days to re-arrange the clusterf*** that the frontpage was. What the f*** have you guys been smoking this entire time? Part of the reason I don't edit here anymore is because when I do happen to do something, I'm the only person doing anything in a wasteland.
In fact, I'm really surprised nobody complained about this: http://i.imgur.com/uQ5XECv.jpg . It looks like s*** and I never included that in the design, yet there's always somebody who edits it back in without making the proper modifications so it doesn't look stupid. Read up on any web ergonomics: NO SCROLL BARS INSIDE SMALL BOXES.
--Sefam (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"About six months" Well, that fairies sure are ugly, but I honestly don't think they're ugly enough to raise such serious discussion here. At least we don't have them at info pages (games, characters etc), right?
Ean (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
A survey is not as simple as you may think. As UTW noted, such a survey can be easily manipulated. Since you remain unconvinced, I'll provide a hypothetical scenario. Let's suppose we do have a survey on the front page and visitors do participate in them. This won't stop either side, who may either passionately like or dislike the fairies, from stuffing the ballot with votes from proxies. And even if visitors do vote honestly without foul play, this won't stop the losing side from accusing the other of such.
You haven't provided any proof of planning. Any assumption you may have had that nobody would care about the fairies was seriously flawed, as the previous and current discussion show. As for the infoboxes, if you did attempt to start discussion and nobody responded, then in that particular case, you could assume that no one cared (as was with my SC list makeover) and proceed with whatever you have planned. Fair enough. But for every new proposal, and especially for any design makeover, you should've taken the hint from the previous frontpage makeover and initiated the first step of asking.
Of course, as you mentioned before, the majority was fine with the fairies for six months. Fair enough. But consensus can change; this is no exception. As for the the News boxes, I did in fact raise an issue before and action was taken. If it annoys you so much, I implore you do do the same, albeit in a much more civil tone. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me sum you (guys) up: "Why have we never received any complaints about fairies until now? By the way, here's a million of anecdotes demonstrating how flawed and tendentious all the complaints we've gotten are. We're going to do things our way whether people like it or not, why is nobody helping?"
...I honestly don't know where to start. But nevermind, there's a self-admitted wall on the other side anyway. NekoScarlet (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I HAVE been receiving complaints about the fairies, except it's always in an extremely negative, immature, personal form from someone who really seems to have a grudge against Leo. It's the same attitude I saw when we first started modifying the mainpage years ago. There's a difference between actually making something that works, being constructive and whatnot, sitting around and discussing and collaborating with the rest of the group, and sitting around screaming 'you have to do what ~I~ want, I don't know what that is, but it has to be ~my~ way! Go do it now, and go commit seppuku you big stupid filthy gaizin, lolololz!' And then you have the few people who fall for it, thinking it's a serious complaint and that 'consensus' is 'shifting', when it's solely a couple of little idiots with big mouths trying to rustle people's jimmies. That's why I put my foot down over this. It's an unbelievable waste of what little resources we have here. Momiji (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Then we discount and ignore opinions from those extremely vitriolic comments you've been receiving. Let them have no play in the current discussion. Simple as that. As much as such comments are incredibly immature and whatnot, it is unfair to let those comments cloud legitimate concerns from everybody else.
As well, I see removing the fairies as not much different from any other mainpage redesign. That means that it is as much of a waste of time as the addition of the fairies, because it is a design change. To the opposing side, the removal of the fairies is considered an improvement, just as much as the addition of the fairies is seen as an improvement by the supporting side. It works both ways.
It really does seem that the biggest sticking point is the amount of actual opposition there are to the fairies due to a 'vocal minority' and whatnot, as was raised by multiple editors. It seems that, for whatever reason, opinions of editors using reasoning based off of perceived distaste from others are going to be ignored (myself, NekoScarlet, Nazeo, UTW, Code Slasher), as well as those who genuinely aren't too fond of them (myself, masuo64, NekoScarlet, Sbluen, Quwanti, Prime32).
So, as much as I am uncomfortable with one, a survey really does seem like the only solution to actually measuring support. If a cheat-resistant survey can be put in place, as Moekou suggests, all the better. Perhaps the biggest benefit to come out one is that it'll serve as a definitive fact. And for other editors, it'll silence the issue for good. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It is a serious complaint that some have, though. Most of the people I've seen complain about it don't have Touhouwiki accounts, so their voices weren't heard here. Most of them complain that it looks unprofessional. I secretly suspect that some of them only object because they think Leo's art is ugly, or because they don't like him (this is very different from "having a grudge" against him, I dislike a whole ton of Japanese artists I have never met or talked to) but that's only half of it.
The other major consistent "unprofessional" complaint is that the fanon sections are so big (and some translation quality issues but that's not a design complaint, the QCers will get to those eventually). I suggest that they be hidden behind an expandable block the same way the spell cards currently are, but that's a topic for another time and place.
And FFS, not everybody who disagrees with you is trolling or retarded, even if they're being rude about it. Is the vote still on? AbyssNova (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
'I secretly suspect that some of them only object because they think Leo's art is ugly, or because they don't like him (this is very different from "having a grudge" against him, I dislike a whole ton of Japanese artists I have never met or talked to) but that's only half of it.'
This is exactly what I meant by 'having a grudge'. I guess the term wasn't really clear enough for that. Momiji (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If you meant, "they don't like him," say "they don't like him," not "they have a grudge against him." When you say grudge, it's assumed that there was some sort of personal tiff involved, and on the internet that means it was probably the result of dumb internet drama. AbyssNova (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't throw around words like grudge. It makes it sound like all complaints about the art are due to more personal reasons rather than the pictures themselves. Particularly, it seems like you hold the opinion that if someone 1) complains about the art and 2) knows who drew it, then they have a grudge against him and thus the complaint isn't worth considering. Seriously, that's how it makes you sound. Getting fed up and putting your foot down saying you won't budge because of this only worsens the matter, regardless of what your actual reasons are. Drake Irving (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
My issue with the survey system is not that there are cheaters and trolls, but rather that there isn't enough participation from the people outside of the wiki. Even if people don't want to register an account with the wiki, we also have an IRC channel and a Facebook page where people can address their grievances if they so choose. The fandom may be large, but I also think it is small enough for anyone to have their own voice be heard.
And we really need to conclude this discussion. Our leader has spoken, and all of us have to respect her decision. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a major concern. A (link to a) poll on the frontpage, or via the news header, would be good enough. Since we would specifically want to solicit opinion from users of the Touhou Wiki, naturally the ones who do care about the Touhou Wiki would see it. A poll is easier to participate in than the Talk pages or IRC because there's no barrier, such as registration or unfamiliarity with IRC, and it's a simple matter of answering yes or no. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
So Momiji has the final word? I'm new to the editor side of Touhouwiki and I don't know who runs what. AbyssNova (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly in favor of a poll, or other method to determine some sort of actual representation of all users. I agree with Kiefmaster on basically all points on this issue. My main concern isn't direct cheating, but if such an "influential" poll appears, I fear both sides will simply go viral and spread the existence of the poll, telling people who do not use the wiki to mass-vote, essentially rendering it useless. Rather than have such a vote be the end-all "definitive fact", I would suggest using the results as an estimate for the overall consensus, and using it as a guideline for further action. Personally I would rather the fairies not be there (Cirno/Dai and Lily in particular), but I don't block them and I'm not vehemently opposed either. I think enabling a permanent cookie to add/remove the fairies could work. A skin could work too, but I'm not sure how much more difficult it would be to implement.
Ibaraki, the existence of the IRC to make suggestions (well, complaints in particular) is generally seen to be pretty alienating. I myself have no problems with using it, but no newcomer with a suggestion wants to head into a channel full of people who might just shut down everything they say and brush them off as a nuisance. Many newcomers who might otherwise post suggestions/complaints on the wiki might feel the same way. While there is a dumb trend of people who dislike the fairies because they dislike Leo and put importance into Leo having drawn them, it's arguable that there is just as much a party for keeping the fairies because of personal relations. A common view held is that when people say "you just have a personal grudge against Leo" and the like, as repeatedly done above, all they're really doing is strawmanning all legitimate complaints into the most vocal and spiteful group. Even though KURUKURU did a fantastic job of painting everyone against the fairies as utter retards, OverCoat (who is usually a pretty cool guy) responded in the worst way possible, and really demonstrated this irrational knee-jerk rejection. I'm sure a lot of people never bothered complaining because they knew they'd be shot down similarly without any real consideration. On the other hand, I readily acknowledge there are many who do just come in and say you're all dumb for keeping the fairies and leave it at insults. Notably, this is different from just "I don't like the fairies why do they need to be there" etc. When you say "being constructive", there is really nowhere constructive to go here, besides more discussion. You give your spiel why you want the fairies gone, and that's enough. I don't see why the average wiki user has to suddenly go above and beyond for something they want changed, just because somebody else put work into it. The people who actively maintain and edit the wiki do so because they want to; you should not hold the average user to such a high standard. To dismiss the people who don't want to do much more than voice their dissent means you're essentially saying the average user has no opinion or input worth considering, and that's what you're doing by phrasing complaints in ways like "you have to do what ~I~ want".
As a side note to AbyssNova, the whole "Fandom section is too big/etc" thing brought up I'm opposed to, however. Fandom is at the bottom and is clearly labeled. The entire argument against (or for having it expandable) seems to stem from the apparent inability to visually separate the sections, the size of some character's sections compared to their official information, and a focus on the brevity of other sections such as the Story sections being stubs. Frankly, it's ridiculous. I'm not sure how else to say it. If it needs a discussion on its own, then please go ahead and split it to another discussion section. Drake Irving (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
'When you say grudge, it's assumed that there was some sort of personal tiff involved, and on the internet that means it was probably the result of dumb internet drama.'
This is also part of the problem. Leo ~does~ have a history of someone nursing a grudge against him over Tumblr. And I suspect putting his art on the wiki opened that back up.
The fact of the matter is, this was an exercise in dealing with Internet trolls. It doesn't matter how relevant the argument is, the first rule in dealing with this sort of situation is not to respond, because you're only giving them exactly what they want. And not only did you fall for it, but you simultaneously get offended when authority tells you to cool it, as if they're infringing on your right to voice your opinion. Well guess what, in this sort of situation, when you're unable to control your hysteria around trolls, I will.
I do require people to register here to post comments. That's not changing. I feel that, if you have an opinion, posting it with a fully registered account makes you give more weight to what you say. If it's too hard to register here or load up IRC to discuss things, that's just laziness. If you won't out of fear of retaliation, that's just cowardly.
Which comes to my last point. If you ~really~ think this is a case of me stepping on people's opinions, you're gravely mistaken. If I really were such a dictatorial ass about styling decisions, then why would I be giving full freedom to the other wikis to do as they please? Because I'm reasonable like that. And at the end of the day, whenever we've received mass hysteria over style changes of the site, it's usually after the fact, after we've had long discussions about it. At some point you just say 'fuck it, I'm gonna ~be bold~' and you just post something, because you could wait for years for a proper discussion and never get any sort of progress. At some point you just have to push things forward, but only then do people come screaming out of the woodwork for changing things.
There's a time and place for site style debating. It's perfectly fine. Please, if you have ideas for the site, post them. Make up mockups in your userspace, it's there for a reason. But in this case, I put my foot down and I'm sticking with it. Not because I necessarily care about the fairies being up or not, but because I want you to understand that this crap is unacceptable.
Thanks. Momiji (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Since you are halting the effort due to the mere presence of a 'troll', let me ask you a question. Under what future conditions or circumstances then, would convince you that any opposition to the fairies is not a result of a troll? Just curious, as I too wish to reduce the influence of actual trolls. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Leo does have a history of someone nursing a grudge against him over Tumblr." So you won't accept any questioning of the faeries on the front page because one of us might secretly be that one guy with a grudge against him? Does this someone have a name?
"The fact of the matter is, this was an exercise in dealing with Internet trolls." Unlikely. If you're going to claim that everyone who disagrees is either a troll or an idiot who fell for the troll (because apparently they're not as smart or internet-savvy as you) well, that's pathetic. This is a case of you stepping on people's opinions. You're doing it right now. Anyone who has the opinion that the faeries shouldn't be there? Stepped on. Everyone who believes that it's a legitimate issue? Stepped on. How the other wikis are relevant to this I don't know. And what "crap," precisely, is it that's unacceptable here anyway? AbyssNova (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter how relevant the argument is, the first rule in dealing with this sort of situation is not to respond, because you're only giving them exactly what they want." Uh, when exactly was it established that the issue was brought up by trolls? Or even that one troll has made a comment thus far? This was started by people who wanted to actually get some progress on the issue and suggested a way to do so, i.e. the poll suggestion. As in, exactly what you want people to do when they want to see changes. Out of the three(?) new names, only one of them decided to be an asshat, and we brushed them off immediately. You're implying that we're only commenting because we all just "fell for" some ethereal troll figure you seem to have made up, and that we're also somehow offended by the admin saying "cool it", when from what I'm seeing you seem to be the most heated. Attempting to cut off all discussion by saying you won't budge on the matter is definitely not telling people to "cool it". I have no idea where you seem to be coming up with all of these bald accusations. What about the suggestion of just going ahead and starting something yourself rather than waiting for an opportunity to present itself for you? Is that not what's going on; people being fed up about no change, and starting a discussion about it? Drake Irving (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Attempts to undermine others and selective quoting are not the ways to prove one's point. Besides, so far there were maybe 4 or 5 constructive comments in the whole "Holy Fairy War".
For the sake of having an opinion, I'll say to leave the fairies as they are. They do add a nice personal touch and have nothing to do with professionalism. If someone does care about wiki, he will contribute regardless of fairies at front page. Yes, I was a bit sceptic at first, but now I got used to them and have nothing against letting them be. The only change that could be made is to find better place for Cirno and Daiyousei so they won't cover the site notifications.
• DennouNeko–[ 09:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Should I have quoted his whole post instead? Has my selective quoting somehow misrepresented his position? And how do I contribute constructively when somebody has declared that "I've had enough, this is my site, I have the final say, that's it, this horse is officially dead, all of you are just feeding trolls and this crap is unacceptable" (that second to last one was a paraphrase) other than to disagree with the decision? Do I have to suggest a custom mockup of a proposed front page with removed or less obtrusive sprites (other than the way it was before) for it to be considered a constructive comment? AbyssNova (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily whole post, but skipping "This is also part of the problem." did change a bit the meaning of quoted text.
And as you can see, if some talks won't be cut short, they turn into endless pointing and blaming others. Since this talk has stalled in that state, someone had to take it back to the consensus from 6 months ago, when active editors agreed on current style. It seems that for 6 months no one came here or to IRC to voice their objections. And please, don't start with "I don't know IRC", because there's very easy to use web client that doesn't require any kind of registration.
• DennouNeko–[ 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The meaning wasn't changed at all. I was questioning why it was even an issue in the first place.
There was no "pointing" or "blaming" going on at the beginning. Various people were carrying out some votes on what to do in a perfectly civil manner (sometimes less than civil, but still on-topic). Then Momiji arrived and accused us all of either being trolls or being hysterical [sic] retards who fell for the troll, and has refused to explain his basis for this judgment. If he wants to point a finger at an alleged troll, I would welcome it. He hasn't. He's simply claimed that trolls exist, we're all wrong, and the discussion is over.
If the policy is really "people discussed it six months ago, end of story," then obviously we're all just wasting our breath here because the matter is closed. But pages with obvious flaws have stayed up for longer (admittedly, not pages that people used every day). I would, however, appreciate some sort of reason as to why Momiji thinks that everybody who wants the front page redesigned is either a troll or someone who has fallen for a troll, because he has been particularly insistent on this point and I would appreciate it if he would offer some explanation for this judgment. AbyssNova (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Having discussed this matter in more depth elsewhere, I'm willing to table this conversation. AbyssNova (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I knew exactly two things about Leo when I began this topic: his name is Leo Modesto and he has a Tumblr where he answers questions with comics. I've never actually visited his Tumblr, and I really know nothing else about him. I began this topic because of the fairies, not because of their creator. Some people have made fairly constructive arguments both for and against the fairies, if their arguments are sound then please don't accuse them of being trolls. RemoveTheFairies (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about the fairies at the top: http://i.imgur.com/lTAAihn.png. Hell, it i s blocking parts of the announcement and is not allowing people to read it unless they go to another page. Yatagarasu (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

They're already being slid over on the mainpage for just that reason. The shift can be increased, but I think it originally became a problem when I turned off the page title on the mainpage. Anyway, that sort of issue is easily fixable, if it was a problem it helps to bring it up right away. Thanks. Momiji (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of a fair survey, didn't the Seimoe popularity contest go over fairly well about a year ago? I even recall cheaters being caught.--Moekou (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Option 2a. So everyone can be happy. Log-in users can edit the css but how about the guests? The edit page lags pretty badly when I submit changes for some reason. --Tourist X (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I find the parallels between this discussion and "The Great Fairy War" to be rather funny. Maybe we are crying over spilled milk? Obviously this is going nowhere fast, so maybe we should stop this standoff over a stalemate? Blaming Momiji (who is female by the way; I've seen a few comments on here referring to her as male) is not going to help, either. Code Slasher (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)