Forum:Wiki format and policies

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091227230730/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/archive/b/bc/20100401212842!Wiki.png

This topic contains discussion of possible changes to the wiki's overall format and policies (stuff like standards for articles, the wiki's theme, changes to templates, new rules, etc.). Think of it as a centralized talk page for things that affect multiple pages or the whole wiki.

Top navigation bar
Soon, I'm going to try turning on the new-style top navigation bar on the wiki. Please let me know if you like the new or old one better. Also, let me know how it could be improved, and if there's other stuff you'd like to see on it. --Cornprone 05:59, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Chat
OK, there's been some requests, so I've turned on he integrated Wikia chat. Let me know if there are any problems. --Cornprone 06:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem. In a way, I guess. People are making accounts just to chat. A reason why this a problem is becuase people are being very rude and constantly curse, and talk about innaproppriate things. Someone even tried pretending to be an admin, and everyone would beg to let him make them be promoted to an admin, even though they do absolutely nothing on the Wiki but... chat. Everyone constantly spams, and it's barely even chatting. Should I block them from chatting if this goes on any longer? A few people have been banned already. Sky Monster 23:02, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we should come up with some specific rules, so moderators know when to warn/ban people. But the larger question is, does chat actually add anything positive to the wiki? Do you guys actually want to keep it? It can be turned off. --Cornprone 23:33, February 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I want the chat to stay on, so yes, there should be rules. Sky Monster 23:34, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here's some initial ideas about rules. Once we've set them, we should put them on a page that you can point people to if they need to see them.


 * No personal insults (insults directed against other users on the wiki), threats of violence, or bullying
 * Don't use multiple accounts to get around bans.
 * No spamming. We can't make "saying dumb things" against the rules, but I'd say intentionally flooding the chat with nonsense or spam is a clear violation.
 * I wouldn't ban someone just for swearing a couple of times. But excessive swearing or other adult content should not be allowed.


 * For most of these, moderators should issue a warning first. If the user fails to heed the warning, then they can be blocked.
 * What do you think about those rules? Anything to add? --Cornprone 23:53, February 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think these rules are consistent with the problems we have been facing with many users on the chat. Marshall Lee 00:00, February 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the rules are good. I always warn them to stop what they are doing, first. If I think of any rules, I'll tell about it here. Sky Monster 00:11, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought of a rule. Lately, people have been role playing. I'm okay with this, I guess, as long as things don't get crazy with it. A few people took it too far, so I think there should be a rule for it. Sky Monster 00:13, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and what do you think about all these people making accounts just to chat? Sky Monster 00:48, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding role playing, I guess it's OK, as long as people are not breaking the rules (i.e. no personal attacks, adult subject matter, etc.) Making an account just to chat is also fine. However, making multiple accounts to pretend to be multiple people or to get around bans is not OK. Those accounts should be blocked. --Cornprone 02:31, March 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I would just like to say that these rules are good and they apply to what some users have been doing, but I think we should make sure that everyone knows and understands these rules. Since many new users do not know them and I don't think we really made them official. Marshall Lee 20:31, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I am sure once the rules get finalized and whatnot we will have a link to them on the main page with the regular rules. felinoel  ~  (Talk)  20:18, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I forgot to sign my name :P Marshall Lee 20:31, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have someone claiming that they were banned from chat for no reason, to prevent further of this, maybe we should request screenshots for when someone gets banned to be posted on their user page? shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 20:01, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would have to be on the part of the Ban-er rather than the Ban-ee, though I assume this is what you meant? Also, Other wiki's have rules that people need x number of edits before they are allowed onto the chat. I think we should do that to, but they have to be mainspace edits that aren't reverted for any reason. I was thinking 10 to start off for now, but that may be too small. What do you all think? -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]] 00:09, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with having that kind of exclusionary rule is that it's hard to enforce. Wouldn't the chat moderators have to spend all their time checking the contribution histories of users who come into chat, counting up un-reverted main namespace edits, constantly ordering people to "Get out!" and then issuing bans to those who don't? Do you really want to be doing that all the time? I wouldn't want chat to be like that. --Cornprone 01:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what Special:Editcount is for. It separates the edit numbers into categories. As for the other thing, that might be problematic, but we have way too much arguement in that chat. I'm sure that the people that actually decide it's worth the time to make edits to the wiki will be the ones that aren't as hot-tempered, although there are exceptions. Other wiki's have that sort of stipulation to being able to use the chat, but I wouldn't be able to tell you how effective it actually is. -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]] 01:54, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bumping... -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]]  05:12, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, after reading this I see that what you are looking for is the code of conduct I proposed down a bit on this page. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:46, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Quote at top of character pages
I've noticed people have added a quote at the top of some character pages. First off, is this cool? Do you guys like having them there? And if so, should we transition them to use Template:Quote? --Cornprone 01:05, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on them, but I have seen the same things on other Wikis I checked out, so I guess that it is something people like on the pages. I'm not sure why it would need to be there, though. Sky Monster 01:20, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Now I do have an opinion. I removed a quotes from a few pages. One of them from the fionna page, was, like, a minute from the episode. Most of the quotes don't even come from the character, and they push down info that is actually important. I say that they should be removed. Sky Monster 23:01, February 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, yeah, that quote on the Fionna page was long and awkward. Anyway, let's wait a bit and see if anyone really wants to keep these. If we don't hear from anybody, we'll go ahead and say quotes at the top of character pages shouldn't be there. --Cornprone 23:11, February 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * No objections yet... I'll just wait a little longer to see if anyone has something to say before removing them. Sky Monster 00:13, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm probably going to start removing quotes soon. I have seen quotes on 2 pages that take up a minute from the episode, and no one seems to really care about the being deleted, for some reason... Sky Monster 00:37, March 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe I requested this a while back, yay for forced integration! lol felinoel  ~  (Talk)  12:51, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I misread this, I am for keeping them, they are fun and can be informative. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 03:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with felinoel, I think they're an interesting way to introduce an article. I'd suggest criteria such as:


 * The character shouldn't have enough quotes for a quote page already.
 * The quote must be relevant to the character in every episode the character is present.
 * The quote must not excess two lines on the page.


 * Those are the main factors that i'd like to see in them. Admittedly I came up with them after only a few minutes of thinking, but I think that any quotes that follow these guidlines (with amendment if necessary) could make some articles more interesting. Flame Prince Finn 00:41, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think quotes at the top of pages defining characters should be exclusive, I think all characters should have them. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 01:50, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be nice to have them on every character, but with Finn or Jake how is it going to be decided which quote of all of them is best? Flame Prince Finn 02:54, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what the quote pages and actual character article is for. We don't need those quotes. Sky  Monster 02:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Finn is easy, "I'll slay anything that's evil, that's my deal!" but Jake idk... oh and a good one for Merceline is, "She's a radical dame who likes to play games!" but maybe not. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 04:59, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Admittedly that's a good one for Finn, but you see my point that characters with a lot of quotes could be difficult to agree on? At any rate, if we're talking specifically about necessity I agree they aren't needed, but a meaningful snippet can only serve as an interesting introduction as far as I'm concerned. I think it's nice to not have to go to a quote page to find the (hopefully agreeable) single most valuable thing a character has said about themself. Flame Prince Finn 20:39, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotes at the top of the page are for describing the character, not just for being a random quote. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 21:09, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Quotes pages
See Talk:Cosmic_Owl/Quotes for the start of this discussion. How many quotes are needed before it gets split into its own page?--Cornprone 00:28, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think more than 5 should be enough to have their own page. Less than 5 would be useless and redundant. Sky Monster 00:39, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more than 2 or maybe more than 3? We'll see if anybody else has opinions about the number. --Cornprone 06:53, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe this was discussed before and that the general consensus before was 3, but I can see having four quotes on a character's page being something that wouldn't break it too much, and then when they have five quotes they get their own page... felinoel  ~  (Talk)  12:52, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I have a better idea. Why don't we make quote pages for characters that where the main characters of an episode? That would make more sense, since the quote pages for minor characters are too short, along with their actual character page. Major characters usually have a lot of quotes, so they would need their own quote page, since their character page would already be too big, right? Also, reccuring characters should also have their own quote page, too. So, to shorten what I said, I mean that characters like the Magic Man and Dr. Ice Cream should have their own quote page, while a character like the Stump shouldn't. Sky Monster 02:19, April 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish, but in order for that to work people would have to stop posting everything someone says instead of just the notable things they say which is what quotes are for... [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:47, April 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * We could easily delete them, right? Not a lot of people actually edit quote pages. Sky Monster 22:09, April 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes we could, but... should we? Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter to limiting quotes to just things that are relatively iconic? Then for characters like Rock who has a few quotes just the most iconic quote of his would be used and perhaps even used at the top of the article so for Rock, "Hey I'm alive!" would likely go at the top of the article, the quotes section would be removed, and the quote article for the character would be deleted. Thoughts? [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 02:07, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * About the quotes at the top of character pages... we decided to get rid of them (sort of). Maybe we make rename the quotes section "iconic quotes" or even make a "quotes heading" template for each quotes page, like the one for the gallery pages, where it explains that only iconic quotes should be written? Sky Monster 02:32, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh oops I misread it then... [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 03:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Here, I made a header for quote pages (change as you like) if you do want us to start cleaning up and policing quote pages. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 13:37, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. I might want to change its appearance somewhat so it looks less like our maintenance tags. --Cornprone 13:48, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it, though on a few wikias they have these as headers for every talk page. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 13:51, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed its style to look more like the gallery page header and added a line. Feel free to keep adjusting it if you can make it look better. --Cornprone 14:07, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just got an email about the change lol, I like it, so should we start policing quote pages then? Once a page gets down to three or less votes delete the page and move the quotes to the main article, right? [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 14:12, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that plan sounds good to me. I might not be eager to jump into more policing personally at the moment, but go ahead. --Cornprone 14:20, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote pages are one of the very few pages I don't get emails about edits, once I set that up for those too I should be able to handle policing after the initial cleaning. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 14:56, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I need a permission to make an article about Clarence's quotes. He has, in my thinking, the best quote ever: My life is like a fart.Afliador8 00:59, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... was that supposed to be a funny line? I never understood it...
 * How many quotes does he have? The general consensus has been if there are more than three notable quotes then its gets an article, though I just now added the word notable to the general consensus. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 01:51, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Potential Code of Conduct Content
Curse words and ignoring admins are abundant here, I just saw a blog response where someone called someone else a fat rat's scat, while humorous really shouldn't be done here. What are thoughts for potential content for a future Code of Conduct here?


 * No foul language directed at someone (a definition of foul would be needed)
 * No excessive use of foul language (already a rule, can be implemented in the CoC)
 * If an admin tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it
 * Talk pages are to be used for only about improving the article itself
 * (add more here) (See below for updated CoC list)

 feli noel  17:50, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily consider swearing a serious violation unless it's pretty extreme. That's a judgment call. Maybe we should crack down on that more. However, if name-calling is directed at another user, I consider that to be worse and will issue warnings against it. --Cornprone 13:39, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Will alter it then, this is why I put a definition of foul is needed. Limiting it to name-calling makes sense since Natasha swore and is being directly quoting while swearing on the Rainicorns page. How does the change I made above sound? shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 13:44, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, "excessive" use of foul language (even if not part of name-calling) is actually already a violation of our current written rules. I just haven't enforced that, yet, but it could be part of the code of conduct. Also, I want "trolling" added to the list of conduct violations, with "trolling" defined as "anything done for the purpose of provoking angry or negative reactions from others." I've let those kinds of things go on for too long because I didn't want to police what goes on in user blogs and chat. But now I realize that if we allow user blogs to be part of the wiki, then we ought to be responsible for preventing the level of discussion from being dragged down into the mud. This wiki is for people who want to gather and share information about the show -- not some random message board. --Cornprone 14:22, March 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I dread coming here to see blogs by users because there is so much negativity.
 * Opinions, debates, and some arguments I can understand. But the blogs are just full of 'trolling', even the images uploaded by some are just used to troll and cause anger. -- Bunai82 (talk) 14:43, March 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only that but some of those pictures are uploaded here and then only used once, while they mostly are just uploaded here to incite anger. shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 11:51, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, you're talking about image macros, those pictures some people use instead of writing a message. I dislike them, but should we officially ban them? Anyway, let me have a try at rewording/expanding what's written in the code of conduct:


 * No personal attacks, threats, or name-calling directed at other people
 * No excessive use of adult language. You will probably not be blocked for swearing a few times, but you may be in violation of the code of conduct if an admin considers your use of language to be excessive.
 * Do not post images with adult language or offensive content. Because images appear in our new files gallery, it's important to keep them clean. Further, offensive images are often used for spamming, trolling, or vandalism, so they will not be tolerated.
 * No spamming, which can be defined as excessive posting of the same message multiple times, or posting numerous messages of gibberish with no legitimate meaning.
 * No trolling, where "trolling" is defined as performing actions for the purpose of provoking angry or negative reactions from other people.
 * Do not impersonate other users.
 * Do not spread false information about other users.
 * Do not support or encourage vandalism, on this on any other wiki.
 * If an admin tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it.

Privacy and safety
 * For your own safety, it's recommended that you not to post personal information about yourself, such as your school or home address. Remember, anything written on any page of this wiki can be read by anyone on the internet. So please consider that before posting.

Let me know what you think. (The thing about talk pages I agree with, but it should be added to our manual of style instead, since it deals with page format.) --Cornprone 23:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * On the subject of image macros, idk if we should ban them per se... maybe require them to remove them after short while after if they aren't in use or even I guess we could leave that to the potential FFF team...
 * I altered the wording tiny bit and added an oxford comma in your list, so I like how this sounds now... though should the last one be changed from admin to moderator? We can then define that further and put that mods can only do this in chat or something like that? shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 23:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, chat moderators have authority over chat. Admins have authority on the whole wiki. If that needs to be clarified, we could note it somewhere. --Cornprone 01:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in these? [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 11:59, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, I made a conduct banner to use for those conducting in a manner against the code.
 * Politely trolling people is still allowed, I hope? For without trolls the wiki-expierence would fall back greatly. The glorious First Consul of Rome 18:59, April 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * why!? why does everyone love trolls so freaking much!?
 * " [[File:Staraptor.gif]] Fear  the   Demon [[File:Weavile.gif]] " 19:01, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Politely trolling" is an oxymoron, though it would appear that it could be, to a certain extent. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 19:01, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's either trolling or it isn't. And if it is, it would be a violation of this code of conduct, if we implement it. I added another point to the proposed code, saying that encouraging or supporting vandalism on any wiki is not allowed. felinoel, the template looks pretty good, although I'd rewrite some of the awkward grammar in the second sentence. Anyway, I'd like to push this code of conduct forward, so if anybody has further changes, additions or arguments, post them here. --Cornprone 09:01, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * With the above definition of trolling, yes any form of trolling won't be allowed, huzzah. Did you already rewrite it? If you feel it is good enough then it should be made into an article now, we can continue editing it after anyways just in case. Also what should the punishment be for breaking these? I assume minimal until several offenses have been reached, I've mentioned before (elsewhere) that we should have a page for those who get banned (temp or perm) so we can keep track of it, it would also list when someone's ban gets lifted (since the chat mods can't set a timer on a ban). This way we could keep track of how many offenses someone's accrued. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:53, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, regarding punishment, violating the code of conduct would be the same as violating any other rules. It would be up the admins to determine the severity of the violation and respond accordingly. I wanted to propose a rewrite of a section of the rules page to explain everything more clearly. I'll do so on this page in the section below. --Cornprone 04:01, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * That lack of consistency though is my issue, where one admin may block a user for three days for breaking a certain rule, another may block that same user for that same rule for two months. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:51, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of things that might be important (in the gray box above). First, I want to ban images with offensive language on them. Reasons are stated above. Second, I also added a rule about impersonating or slandering others. Also, I added a "safety and privacy" section which contains not rules, but some advice. Let me know if you agree or disagree with any of the above. --Cornprone 07:13, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion on stolen identities are posted here. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 17:00, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Rules page proposed rewrite
Proposed rewrite of a section of Adventure_Time_Wiki:Rules to explain how to deal with rule breakers more clearly. It basically codifies the rules we've already been using.

The following are warnings and responses that admins may use against users who break the rules, policies, or code of conduct. They are listed from least serious to most serious:
 * 1) A polite first warning explaining what the user did wrong and asking them not to do it again.
 * 2) One or more additional warnings. These may be accompanied by up to three vandalism template tags but only for vandals, not for people acting in good faith. Warnings can also include conduct tags for violations of the Code of Conduct.
 * 3) Blocks of a duration of 1 to 7 days for minor violations, if the user has continued to break rules after receiving one or more warnings.
 * 4) Blocks of 1 to 4 weeks for more persistent violations and/or serious violations.
 * 5) Blocks of 1 or more months for numerous, persistent violations and/or very serious violations.
 * 6) Permanent blocking is usually reserved only for the following:
 * Users that engage in persistent, serious vandalism, especially if the account is used only for vandalism
 * Users who have come back from multiple temporary blocks in the past, but still continue to break the rules.
 * Accounts that are confirmed to be sock puppets can be blocked permanently. Also, it is against the rules to create a new account to get around an existing ban. Such accounts should be blocked permanently, but only if it is known with certainty that the account is used by the same person who used a currently-blocked account.

Generally, if a user continues to break rules, they will incur progressively more serious punishments from this list. For minor violations, users might receive many warnings without necessarily being blocked. However, for very serious offenses, administrators can skip directly from a first warning to a long block. Admins can choose the response -- including block duration -- based upon their judgment of the severity of the violation.

Administrators should provide a clear explanation when performing any block. If a block is neither permanent nor for vandalism, the admin should leave a polite message on the user's talk page explaining why they were blocked and asking the user to return if they can follow the rules in the future. This is just a first draft. Thoughts? --Cornprone 04:01, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty good imo. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:47, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit: I like the warning system, but the disparity in "1 to 7 days" and multiple "weeks or months" is pretty big. Maybe short block should be 3 days, longer block should be 3 weeks? The rules in the above Code of Conduct though seem spot on, I'd definitely like to see them added. If the talk page suggestion felinoel had is listed in the manual of style, I also think it should be noted that you should read the manual before posting. Flame Prince Finn 01:07, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't we always had a warning system? It is just that people stopped using the warning templates so lately I've been using them more lol.
 * As much as it pains me to realize, people don't read the manual of style. So I've just been telling people how they've been messing up instead of giving them warnings for it, if you want a place full of people ignoring the manual of style check out the voting for the featured articles for one, few seem to actually sign their votes for some reason... [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 01:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you guys want more granularity in block lengths, we could add an in-between amount. Originally, I left a lot of leeway for admins to use their judgment. When I'm blocking a vandal, I might choose anywhere from 2 days to infinity, depending on a lot of factors, like the quantity, content, and persistence of the vandalism, and whether it seems like there's any hope that the user could learn their lesson and come back as a legit contributor. --Cornprone 07:22, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm probaby just being nitpicky here. If all the admins are known to have good judgement then leaving flexibilty in block length is most practical. Like you said, there are a lot of factors. I don't have any complaints with the system above that are valid enough to slow down its implementation. Flame Prince Finn 20:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I revised what I wrote a little to try to provide more guidelines, while still allowing admins flexibility. Let me know if you agree with these guidelines. If no one objects, I'll integrate this into the official rules page soon. --Cornprone 14:31, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] f e l in o e l [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 15:21, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I added this revised section to the rules page. --Cornprone 04:19, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Woo, now about the Code of Conduct, should it get its own page or should it be tacked below the Rules? [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 04:09, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking a separate page, as the rules page is already getting quite long, and it'd be easier to point users to the code if it was separate. --Cornprone 02:26, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * kay I will put it together tomorrow at work if you think that should be fine. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 02:33, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm working on it right now, because I said I'd finally implement it today. But feel free to revise the formatting if you think it needs any work. --Cornprone 02:49, April 23, 2012 (UTC)