Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Archive 1

message: I've started to work on the userbox, so far I've managed to make this:

, which produces this:
So, what do you think? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 11:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox proposal 

message: Do all articles in List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network come within the scope of the project? And what about blocks like Toonami, and Miguzi? What about the sister channel, Boomerang? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project scope 

message: No, Not every show ever aired is included. Driveus 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what about the blocks? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Project Scope

message: Hey guys I'm back. Don't let the WIkibreak template on my page fool you. Driveus 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, :). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm Back

message: To help the project get some form of motivation going, I've added a To-do template so we can keep a track of what's going to need to get done and keeps things organised in some way at least. Also, with the lack of interest in this, is there anyway we can bang the drum about and get more people to keep the maintenance going when whomever is linked right now can't? Right now, some articles are running feral and expanding to multiple articles with one of the main culprit being the KND mini-project when they have a wiki on the subject already but could possibly get spun off into a WP of their own. I'm figuring at least we should get started on some form of assessment system so we can start to issue real feedback on articles we genuinely think need improvement. Back to the to-do template addition, I've been playing with the  example page and want us to use it. I've got an example of it at my userspace so go take a look and tell me what you think. --treelo talk 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did write some things about how those sections needed to be there but I didn't figure they were wiki wide and it's fairly feasible that some of our articles could make FA status but the collaboration could still make sense to me on the grounds that these elements are our own featured content lists specific to the project. User:Blooregard is fictional, used as boilerplate so people know the syntax. --treelo talk 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd prove what exactly? Can't see the point, sockpuppets are usually used by cowards not willing to show themselves. --treelo talk 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:CN a bit down? 

message: Call it POV if you want, but at least according to me, there's a lot of work to be done, with four particular series — Ed, Edd n Eddy, The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy, Codename:Kids Next Door, and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, more particularly the pages dedicated to their episodes, characters, and other in-universe things. They seem to be a bigger target for cruft. Ok, honestly, am I acting paranoid or do you agree? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you are paranoid but I do know that there is a lot of work needed. I do not watch Grim or KND so you or Black Cat can work on those. I'll try to work on Foster's, Eds (Not likely) and other shows (Camp Lazlo, Gym Partner etc....) I might be a tad busy with WP:Tugs so it might take a while. Driveus 17:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can help out with any of those so I'll get to work on them ASAP. --treelo talk 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Got a problem, what's the code for adding the WP:CN template which actually links to a template rather than the code used to write it? --treelo talk 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Template created, use  for adding code and try and retrofit pages currently with the old code. --treelo talk 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame about the fair-use thing for the template, what'd pass as fair-use? I figure using just the CN of the logo but not copying either logo which could be easily replicated. Don't really want to be using a lame replacement like the Nick WP has to use. --treelo talk 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It'll be hard to show it too without possibly violating the FUP. Go check what WP:Nick uses for their logo, a poor replacement for the real thing but it beats the FUP for being cruddy. We'll have to use something equally cruddy because I can't think of anything that represents Cartoon Network and what it does without it looking like garbage or violating FUP for being too close a representation. --treelo talk 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Really don't understand how you came to create this and now feel you can't handle it. Didn't you even know what being part of getting a WP and maintaining it meant? I didn't even create it and feel very uncertain about things like FUPs, placement and even expansion too but I do know what I want the project to be like and if I make mistakes during that time then I'll learn from them instead of going "I can't do it" and not even bothering to do that which I don't understand but others have learned.  --treelo talk 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If so, why doesn't Black Cat have more of a presence? Would be nice if someone with some idea of direction were here overseeing the project. --treelo talk 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, I'll accept the position due to lack of any other teamleaders but I do expect other members to follow my line of direction to some degree. --treelo talk 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority areas 

message: How 'bout we advertise a bit, like leaving a note at the Community Portal? That should give the project a good jumpstart. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did highlight something along those lines earlier this week but we were too busy futzing over the template  to pay attention to doing something practical. --treelo talk 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A note for assistance is now on the Community Portal (don't know if it'll stick but we have one week eitherway) and that's pretty much all. Oh, and the page has been moved to get rid of that pointless colon. Driveus, please read help if you're uncertain of anything! Hasn't put me wrong yet and doesn't hurt to ask either. That and try not to use * for markup here, : is really much more accepted --treelo talk 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK then, I would suggest using the colons instead because you're not making a list and nobody else really uses it. --treelo talk 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Want to be different? Fine but it makes you look stupid and incapable of simply responding on talkpages right. Just because it was the first way doesn't make it right even for you. --treelo talk 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there probably wasn't but I do stand by what I said even if you dislike it. --treelo talk 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Do you think we should start a smaller-project for boomerang? Driveus
:Not really. Boomerang's basically a sister channel, I doubt they even have enough original programming, seeing as nearly, if not all of their programmes are shows that don't air on Cartoon Network anymore, besides, not every little thing deserves it's own WikiProject. That's my opinion at least. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that Boomerang doesn't require one because it exists in only a handful of countries and the content that'd be covered would fall into a much more capable WP's catchment. Whether what it plays counts as "original programming" differs from country to country also. Anyway, aren't we doing a good enough job? --treelo talk 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Suggestion

message: Can someone keep an eye on the sprawl that seems to have popped up around both Camp Lazlo and Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends? Getting a bit unruly and one article has already been deleted through AfD for being fancruft. --treelo talk 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there's sprawl alright! When I say "sprawl" I mean that excessive articles are being created which either amount to fancruft or could be shrunk and merged into existing articles. For me, I really dislike articles for minor characters, Camp Lazlo is the worst offender I'm aware of. Keep an eye on those because it's getting a bit daft seeing the rapid decline in articles and nobody seeing much wrong being diehard fans and all. --treelo talk 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll see what I can do for the Foster's articles, though I may be a bit short on time to fix them. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a new recruit today so I'll add this little thing to the to-do list. --treelo talk 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping tabs 

message: I created a new template for pictures/logos
The link is right here Template:Cartoon Network-Picture
What do you think? Driveus
:Changed it so it fell closer in line with the main template we use. Just as an aside, what purpose does this serve? --treelo talk 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can but we don't make enough to make it worthwhile and even if we did, what'd be the point in tagging all our images? There's such a thing as overtagging media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treelo (talk • contribs) 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Template

message: As an advisory to everyone, please update and add things to the to-do list for the project so other can see at a glance where action needs to be taken. --treelo talk 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted, don't remove things if something is unfinished or because you think articles may never need be merged. If you want to discuss anything with how the to-do list works, use its talkpage. --treelo talk 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the to-do list! 

message: Do you think that we need new members. Some projects like Nickelodeon or Disney have at least 20 users. We only have 5. Even my other project for TUGS has had more than 5 members (even though now we have 5 due to users quiting and violating). Driveus
::Well, me and T-borg have said we do need more members to join but seeing as many of the editors for the articles happen to be a bit indiscriminate when it comes to fancruft and one of the better editors who I'd love to be attached seems to have no interest in joining so it's a bit Catch 22 to me. You've gone and invited people through their talkpages before, right? We need to do that again and basically get the word spread that we'd like assistance but much further. People we think who'd be beneficial (by which I mean have a history in reverting vandalism and improving CN articles) to the project get a direct message through their talkspace and articles that get a good amount of edits to them which happen to not be vandal reverts get a message in their talkspaces also. I think that method would be the most beneficial because really it's the only one open to us. --treelo talk 14:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we write up a shortlist of who we'd be interested in joining and ask them personally --treelo talk 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but like I said, we should have a list of who we want now knowing they're capable of it. Right now I have a couple of articles that demand a much more keener eye on them and just warned someone for basically owning 4 articles, reverting many neccesary edits by way of just deleting them and ignoring any cleanup notices. I've created a page for this because it's not so good gunking up this page and I'll need to archive this soon if more sections get added. Personally, I want to go out and cut back a lot of pages, merge a bunch and cleanup in general but I figure that a lot of people get revert happy if they find their misworded chunk of cruft gets cut. The issue here is "Be bold but expect your work to be reverted"  and even though it seems bad, go in and do it anyway and if they argue it should be there then use the talkpage to argue for either why it was done and should stick or a rewrite  of the section or article. --treelo talk 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'll go along with that but if all we're doing is trying to convince people what should be in an article what else should we do? What you said suggests we shouldn't edit but convince others to do so. --treelo talk 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. What I ment was a reasonable discussion, so that people are fully aware of what we're changing, just a measure against edit and flame wars. Sorry, I'm not what one'd call a bold contributor. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame that, we do need bold editors. --treelo talk 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did. --treelo talk 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Members