Project:Round table

From Kings Wiki, masculinity and nationalism
Jump to: navigation, search

Date format[edit]

Do we have a standard on how dates are written? I've been using dd.mm.yyyy (the Australian and European format), but I've also been seeing mm.dd.yyyy (the US format) used a bit. Should we agree on a consistent date format? Fokker (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I know that on Wikipedia, they use mm.dd.yyyy for US or Canada-based subjects and dd.mm.yyyy for the rest of the world. 11:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Canadians in my experience use dd.mm.yyyy. I've been using yyyy-mm-dd in tables since that theoretically makes them easiest to sort. Otherwise, the majority of our audience will be U.S. based, and probably only secondarily UK and Canadian. On this basis, I propose mm/dd/yyyy for dates and—similarly—imperial units (miles instead of km). Conchis (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I use dd.mm.yyyy. But yeah, tables should use yyyy.mm.dd to make them easier to sort. We can use both imperial units and metric; there are templates for doing automatic conversions. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes syndication in bottom of ROK and RV.com[edit]

Should we have the Recent Changes feed linked in the bottom of Return of Kings and RooshV.com, like how the forum is linked in the bottom there? Fokker (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested more integration along those lines. For example, we could also have one integrated search for all the Kings Media sites. At least we have a plug on RoK. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I've put this to Roosh in the comment section of his latest article. Fokker (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You could also email him. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Categories were a mess. I've obviously done a lot of work in the last week without consulting the rest of you first. Any issues so far? Conchis (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I take back what I wrote about single-page categories. Some of these categories will obviously grow over time, and it makes for a cleaner structure to have them. Conchis (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Echoes vs Categorization[edit]

I'm inclined to pass on the routine use of (((Echoes))) on this site. However, we can and should freely identify them in the leads and assign the category of "Jews" in place of this practice. Also feel free to add other subcategories under Category:People by ethnicity. Anyone feel differently? Conchis (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dramatica uses dramatica:Template:Jew. We could always have a list of people considered echoworthy and provide rationales. Otherwise, it's kind of ambiguous. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I like that the ED template. That's a good idea. Conchis (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I created an "off switch" for those who don't want to see it:
However, I'm wondering if, instead, "off" should be the default and "on" should be the option. Thoughts, please. --Idris (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think if we're going to do it, there should also be the option that people can have it display as echoes rather than as an icon. So for example, {{jew|Emmanuel Goldstein}} could display as either (((Emmanuel Goldstein))) or as Emmanuel Goldstein✡. Yes, I'd say that "off" should be the default. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Users can now enable echoes, stars, and so forth from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. --Idris (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Default On or Off[edit]

Cool, now we have stars, crescents, and the rest of me lucky charms. I'm kind of on the fence about whether it should be enabled by default, by the way. Maybe enabled at least for logged in users? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you concerned about happening if they are enabled by default? Conchis (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's just unusual to have a symbol like that in the middle of the article text. However, what would be kinda cool would be to add to mw:Extension:Cite the capability to make the star a footnote that would link to a reference at the bottom with evidence of the person's Jewishness. Something to suggest at Phabricator, perhaps? We could add some hooks to the Cite extension if needed and then write another extension that uses those hooks to enable these star/crescent/fedora references. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thinking about future readers/editors, one potential downside is people getting obsessed with the "Who's Jewish" question and letting it distract from content creation or resulting in people leaving. That's a common problem in WNism that leads to nowhere. There are many who are obvious, but many for whom there is no clear answer. I tend to only label "public" and self-identified, but this is a case where rules for marking seem called for. Conchis (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it also kinda leads down to the path to becoming a joke wiki (like ED). We pretty much rejected that path by creating a Fun namespace and moving some of the earlier joke articles (like Fun:Little Dark) there, so that mainspace wouldn't fill up with them. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Lords, check out my draft Project:Naming the Jew and see if it's reasonable. If we can agree, I'll move it out of the project namespace. Conchis (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks quite good to me. Fokker (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Since it's been published at the Round Table, if no one objects to it in the next week, it can be marked as a behavioral guideline. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Category on Template[edit]

Fokker, I suggest not including the category in the template because the template will be used on pages that are not about Jews. We don't want those pages showing up in that category. Conchis (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the category out. Fokker (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Muslims and Atheists[edit]

I've also seen moons and stars being used on ED after the names of Muslims and fedoras after the names of atheists. Could we import those templates? Fokker (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC) (Dramatica:Template:Muslim and Dramatica:Template:Atheist)

Yup, go for it. Um, import? Or do a copy-and-paste? I haven't set up this wiki to be able to import directly from anyplace but Wikipedia because of the potential for template incompatibilities. (I've had that happen on several wikis, and it's a real pain in the neck to undo sometimes.. I've had to do a mass deletion of all templates and start from scratch sometimes when I couldn't troubleshoot what was causing the issue..) Raymond Kertezc (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reporters with an anti-Trump bias[edit]

Roosh wants Kings Wiki to have articles about reporters with an anti-Trump bias. If you have any knowledge on that topic, feel free to create stubs and to add subheadings to List of reporters with an anti-Trump bias. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

By reporters, does this include editorialists? I added George Will, but then reconsidered. Also the Des Moines Register is one of the most anti-Trump papers I've seen (and one of the few local papers to rail against the February meetup), and I'm sure they have names for the list. Conchis (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Editorialists are supposed to be opinionated; journalists, not so much. But feel free to create a list of anti-Trump editorialists or list of media outlets that oppose Trump if you wish. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

SFW vs. NSFW[edit]

Should we strive to keep this project safe for work? I know Roosh didn't want us to host pornographic content, but even Wikipedia has tasteful nudes at wikipedia:Woman or wikipedia:de:Frau. That would count more as artwork or medical photos that probably your co-workers wouldn't report you to HR over (at least, if you were browsing Wikipedia rather than Kings Wiki). Raymond Kertezc (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a NSFW template that will hide content until actively opened? I kill time here at work so I would prefer some measure of SFW. But I can use judgment if the title of the article looks NSFW. I think in our repressed and oppressed culture the naked pregnant woman on the german site would be NSFW. Conchis (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Kings Wiki logo
[ShowHide]
KingsWiki - English - 1000x1000.png
Magnify-clip.png
Kings Wiki logo

I've created Template:Collapsedthumbnail for NSFW images. --Idris (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Conchis (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Idris (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to make spoilers invisible till they're highlighted, kinda like what they do on TV Tropes? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

http://tvtropes.org/design/js/main.js

$( function () {

    /*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SPOILER TOGGLE ON CLICK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*/
    $('.spoiler, .spoiler-off').click( function(e) {

        if(e.target.nodeName.toLowerCase() == 'a' && $(this).hasClass('spoiler-off')) { return true; }

        if(e.target.nodeName.toLowerCase() == 'sup' && $(this).hasClass('spoiler-off')) { return true; }

        $(this).toggleClass('spoiler').toggleClass('spoiler-off');
        
        if($(this).hasClass('spoiler-off')) e.preventDefault();

    });

});

http://tvtropes.org/design/css/main.css

.spoiler-off {
    -moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
    -moz-border-left-colors: none;
    -moz-border-right-colors: none;
    -moz-border-top-colors: none;
    border-color: -moz-use-text-color gray gray;
    border-image: none;
    border-style: none dotted dotted;
    border-width: medium 1px 1px;
    padding: 0 1.4px;
}

.spoiler {
    -moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
    -moz-border-left-colors: none;
    -moz-border-right-colors: none;
    -moz-border-top-colors: none;
    background: #fff none repeat scroll 0 0;
    border-color: -moz-use-text-color gray gray;
    border-image: none;
    border-style: none dotted dotted;
    border-width: medium 1px 1px;
    color: #fff;
    padding: 0 1.4px;
}

.spoiler a:link, .spoiler a:hover, .spoiler a:visited {
    color: #fff;
}

.spoiler a.urllink:link, .spoiler a.urllink:hover, .spoiler a.urllink:visited {
    color: #fff;
}

--Idris (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so how do you use it on MediaWiki? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm a novice when it comes to JavaScript. I was hoping that you knew more than I did. --Idris (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Nah, my specialty is PHP. Nice collapsed thumbnail, by the way. I almost feel like I need to post higher-quality nude photos to make it worth users' while to click to uncollapse them. Otherwise, they might feel like I wasted their time. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

American or European spelling?[edit]

What spelling standard should we use on this wiki? As an Australian, I tend to use European-style spellings (-ise, -our etc. etc.). I notice Conchis has been changing some of my edits with European spellings to use American ones (-ize, -or etc. etc.). Should we have a standard for that? Fokker (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Shall we settle this by a chess match in which all the users favoring English spelling play one side, and all the users favoring American spellings play the other side? (In case a consensus cannot be reached about the move to be taken by either the white or black side, the dispute will be settled by a chess tournament among the users who are proposing alternative moves, with the winning player getting to choose the move. In case, within this chess tournament within a chess match, consensus cannot be reached regarding a move to be taken, this will settled by a chess tournament as well, and so on, and so on, recursively.) Raymond Kertezc (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Since this is a legitimate dispute between two titled Lords, I as the challenged party do claim my privilege to decide the manner in which this dispute will be settled. (Although since Fokker is the aggrieved, perhaps it is his prerogative. Nevertheless, I will have it.) I select for resolution a sausage-eating contest. I will prepare two sausages, otherwise equal except that one of them is poisoned. He may choose which sausage he will consume in full, and I will down the remaining bag of tender and heavily salted animal flesh. May the best man win. Conchis (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL4c9gCRSKY. --Idris (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
What about Oxford spelling? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I reckon that could work. Fokker (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
How do we pick a spelling standard? What criteria do we judge it by? Most of the readership is probably U.S.... Raymond Kertezc (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Medieval gym[edit]

Where did guys hang out to lift weights in medieval times? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

They didn't. That's why the moors and Mongols kicked their asses at various times. (Doesn't this belong in the Tavern?) Conchis (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I figured you might say that, but I was thinking of creating a forum for discussion of physical fitness. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
For the warrior class, the metal plates were contoured to their body, and the hand-weights involved a lot of explosive overhand swings with the dominant hand. I doubt they had any protein shakes or Kratom, though. Same for the Romans, unfortunately. (But if the Romans had Kraton, Latin would not be a dead language.) Conchis (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Argumentation / FAQs[edit]

I was thinking we could create some argumentation/FAQ pages. Maybe we could set aside a namespace for that, or use a Miscellany: namespace.

There could be, for instance, a Donald Trump FAQ, a neomasculinity FAQ, etc.

A FAQ could be geared toward providing general information, while an argumentation page would deal specifically with countering objections. Alternatively, we could just have articles like objections to Donald Trump or criticism sections of existing articles. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I propose a FAQ category as the simpler approach. Then they will show up easier in typical searches. Conchis (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
What do you think? Conchis (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
So those are basically talking points. I was thinking more of a Q&A format. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I was going off of: "...while an argumentation page would deal specifically with countering objections." However, I still see categories as much better than namespaces. Am I missing some big advantage to namespaces? I just can't see a use other than Project: and User:. Conchis (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"User:" implies there's one user who has ultimate authority over what goes in the page. "Project:" is for stuff about Kings Wiki, rather than about Kings Wiki's topics (masculinity, nationalism, etc.). An argumentation page is collaboratively edited and belongs to the community (rather than any particular user), and yet is not an encyclopedia article. Here's an example of an Argumentation namespace: http://wiki.mises.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&namespace=404 Raymond Kertezc (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

200-post rule[edit]

The 200-post rule reinforces the primacy of game within the RVF community, does it not, since what else are you going to talk about while you're waiting to hit the 200-post mark, other than game? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you want some more namespaces?[edit]

Would an Essay: or Miscellany: namespace be helpful, for instance? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you be able to reenable the "Recipe" namespace so I can delete the broken "Raymond KErtezc's dad's spaghetti" page from Category:Recipes? Fokker (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It's probably easier just to manually edit the database to move it into mainspace: Raymond Kertezc's dad's spaghetti. Done. This is making me hungry, by the way. That recipe makes VERY good spaghetti, probably because it's done in a way that takes several hours, allowing the spices to be thoroughly infused into the meat sauce over time. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
For essays, I'd recommend the Wikilog extension if possible, which provides a namespace for making blog like articles. GethN7 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone wants to scope it out: mw:Extension:Wikilog, wikiapiary:Extension:Wikilog. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Echoes vs. stars[edit]

Should echoes be reserved only for evil Jews, with good Jews getting a star? For example, should Ayn Rand get a star rather than echoes? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Was Ayn Rand good or evil? Is Ross Jeffries good or evil? Is Robert Greene good or evil? Is Jerry Seinfeld good or evil? I say leave it an opt-in activity with the user deciding either-or as it stands. Conchis (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of quoting banned RVF users in articles that aren't about the banned user himself?[edit]

I was quoting Mon in Polygyny#Arguments_against_polygyny, but I've often wondered about quoting banned RVF users. When they're making claims about their love lives, I'm inclined to not quote them, because maybe they were banned because they were finally exposed as bullshit artists. But if they're just saying stuff that anyone could've said (e.g. political arguments, where the facts and logic are verifiable), then I don't mind quoting them.

(Also, taking a closer look at Do you think that polygamy will ever be legal in the USA?, I realize, its scope was broader than I thought, and therefore it was pointless to create this new thread. That sucks.) Raymond Kertezc (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends (1) what they were banned for, (2) how they are being quoted, and (3) the availability of a better source. On (1), if they were banned for unrelated issues, why not? On (2), if they are being quoted as a bad example, fine. If they are being quoted on a subject they were not banned over, fine. If they are used to set up an argument or contrast to a manosphere viewpoint, fine. On (3) if no better source is immediately at hand, then if nothing else the quote can serve as a placeholder until a better one is found. Conchis (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Do we in most cases know the reason they were banned? Raymond Kertezc (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No. So just use the quote appropriately to the Wiki. Conchis (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Coming Along Well[edit]

We have almost 1500 articles. Most of the pages are categorized. Vandalism has been minimal, and what we have run across barely lasts an hour before we get it. And the Wiki looks good, not amateurish at all. Not bad for just a few active men. I have never participated in a wiki in my life before this, but starting one is pretty hard as far as I can tell. I still think at some point when it is obvious that the project will last, new editors will come. Neomasculinity is still small, but it will grow. Well done, all. It makes me proud to be here. Conchis (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's doing well for a 7-month-old wiki. The main page is the most visibly neglected aspect, but on the other hand, effort devoted to that tends to produce ephemeral results, unless it helps us draw attention to content that then gets reblogged elsewhere. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, portals need work. Body is the furthest along. Empty portals need changing, but we need someone really into the topic to do a good job, so no use making a push. What else on the main page? Conchis (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, we just need more added to Template:Randomly featured article, Template:Randomly featured quote, Template:In the news, Template:Did you know, etc. (I wonder sometimes if there's a way to set these up to be infinitely scrolling.)
If we get to the point where we have a few hundred featured items in the random rotation, and one new news item and DYK per day, we'll be doing pretty good for a site this size. But it can get pretty exhausting trying to do that consistently. I find that eventually, my stamina runs out.
By the way, bear in mind — I'm a contrarian by nature, so if you say that the wiki is coming along well, I will automatically tend to think of ways in which it's not coming along well. However, if you had said that it's not coming along well, I would probably have thought of some ways in which it is coming along well. But it's just a question of whether the glass is half full or half empty.
When people are depressed, I'm an encourager; when people are joyful, I'm a guy who will point out the flaws in the situation. Being a contrarian, though, means always being a little out of sync with others, which is both good and bad. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm getting a bit fatigued. I have a lot of offline projects to keep up with. But I want to finish the masculine archetypes before I slow down. Conchis (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's all right; from the beginning, Roosh had the idea that the wiki would grow slowly and organically. (On the other hand, explosive growth undertaken by individuals acting on their own initiative can also be a form of organic growth, but I think maybe he just didn't want us to be discouraged if it didn't take off as quickly as we might hope.) Raymond Kertezc (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've never edited Wikis before, but I liked the idea of the project. I figured that it would help to get a lot of content out there. On the other hand, if I became one of these on KW I was afraid people might be afraid to edit content I put up, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I hope. (Because a lot of it needs a lot of work yet.) Conchis (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone here know German?[edit]

Looks like a worthy project: TRP! Help me translate Esther Vilar's "The End Of The Manipulation" to English! Looking for German Speaker to Translate Esther Vilar's 3rd Book Raymond Kertezc (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

YouTube transcripts[edit]

I didn't realize this till now, but you can get a copy of YouTube transcripts (whether manually created, or auto-generated) through this procedure:

  • Go to YouTube and open the video of your choice.
  • Click on the "More actions" button (3 horizontal dots) located next to the Share button.
  • Click "transcript"

See, e.g., the transcript at Alice Schwarzer vs. Esther Vilar. Do we wanna use these transcripts in our video articles, as something that's better than nothing? I suggested to Roosh that we create transcripts by hand on Kings Wiki and then have him add those to the YouTube videos, but I think he's concerned that you have to include the timestamps in the transcripts, which didn't seem worth the effort. See also Tips for creating a transcript file and Add subtitles & closed captions. The other option would've been to link from the YouTube description to the Kings Wiki article with the transcript. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing / alt-right political parties and candidates around the world[edit]

Can someone write a stub about the right-wing / alt-right political parties and candidates around the world that have been increasingly successful these days? Some of the top of my head are Rodrigo Duterte; Alternative for Germany; and of course Donald Trump. Raymond Kertezc (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Golden Dawn in Greece? Conchis (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambig pages for given names[edit]

I've started making lists of people with particular given names. So far, we've collected all the Davids, Jameses, Jareds and Jacks who have articles on this wiki. Fokker (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Naming of post-Vatican II popes[edit]

When referring to all Popes elected after 1962 (when the Second Vatican Council was convened), should we use their secular names (i.e. Jorge Bergoglio) or their papal ones (i.e. Francis)? Fokker (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What are the arguments on each side of the issue? Jean Valjean (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest the article name is whatever KW readership is more likely to search for, which is probably the papal name. Then just create a redirect from the secular name to cover your bases. Conchis (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Neomasculinity portal[edit]

What I suggest is that we beef up the neomasculinity articles as much as we can with the available resources, and then decide whether it makes sense to have a Portal:Neomasculinity (in addition to the Portal:Masculinity and Portal:Nationalism, the latter of which hasn't been created yet). I did a search on RVF for the keyword "neomasculinity" and there are 16 pages of results, most of which seem to be Return of Kings articles. In a way, that's actually better than if they were just forum posts, but on the other hand it could mean that the concept of neomasculinity hasn't been widely adopted outside of an elite within our community, viz. its leadership. Jean Valjean (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem with neo-anything is at some point it's no longer neo. I like the term neo-nationalism to distinguish it from the jingoism of the past, but no one seems to use this term. Neo-Confucianism, Neo-Platonism, Neo-conservatism. As they get old it starts to sound silly. Let's stick with masculinity and make sure to feature neo-masculinity within the portal. Conchis (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Portals cleanup[edit]

Currently, we have:

  • Portal:Body: This one is in good shape (no pun intended), so let's keep it
  • Portal:Books: This one is good too, and has a lot of potential, so let's keep it
  • Portal:Culture: This one has good content and a lot of potential (films, music, etc.), even though it overlaps somewhat with Books
  • Portal:Game: This one is crucial, although there's bound to be some overlap with Women and/or The Sexes
  • Portal:Girls: Nothing here; probably should be renamed Women or merged into Game and/or The Sexes, unless we're going to use it to highlight particular women (possibly including eye candy) or deal with female psychology (but again, that partly falls under Game, and could also overlap with Mind)
  • Portal:History: Nothing here, although surely there's some potential
  • Portal:Language: Pretty important, since foreign language open some doors with regard to Game and moving abroad
  • Portal:Lifestyle: Nothing here; maybe we can get rid of it, because it overlaps with Masculinity
  • Portal:Manosphere: Not a whole lot here, but maybe it has some potential; partly overlaps with Game and Masculinity
  • Portal:Mind: Not a whole lot here; overlaps somewhat with Girls, Masculinity, and The Sexes. Not sure what our vision for this section is, although right now maybe it's the best place for content about archetypes and phenomenology
  • Portal:Nationalism: Nothing here; Fokker, want to do something with this?
  • Portal:Neomasculinity: Perhaps verlaps with Masculinity, Manosphere, and Nationalism enough that we can just cut it, unless someone has a keen interest in it. If, say, Quintus Curtius were to show up, I might encourage him to create a portal like this.
  • Portal:News: Nothing here, although I've thought it could be a repository for old content from Template:In the news.
  • Portal:Philosophy: Overlaps with Mind somewhat, but there's so much within this field, and it's so pertinent to our mission, that I guess it needs its own portal
  • Portal:Politics: Overlaps somewhat with Nationalism, but probably has potential to cover domestic politics more
  • Portal:Science: Not much there. Maybe it would have potential, except that Wikipedia already covers science pretty well. Most of neomasculinity's dissident theories could probably fall under Mind. So maybe this is a good candidate to be cut.
  • Portal:Site News: Nothing there. We don't have a lot of site news to announce, and unless someone wants to take charge of summing it up and putting it in this portal, maybe we should get rid of the portal. The Kings Wiki story can, for now, be summed up in the Kings Wiki article. When the site gets bigger, maybe we would have use for a portal like this.
  • Portal:Sports: If we didn't have coverage of a few Olympic sports in this portal, I would say we should cut it due to lack of interest. Overlaps somewhat with Body. I'm not sure how much potential this portal has, because for the most part, the manosphere doesn't care much about sports.
  • Portal:The Sexes: Nothing there. Overlaps with Game, Girls, and Masculinity. Arguably, we could cut this.
  • Portal:Travel: Pretty important, and has potential.
  • Portal:Wisdom: Nothing there, and it's not clear what we would actually use this for. Maybe we should cut it, unless someone has an interest in it.
  • Portal:Work & Money: Nothing there, but there probably should be. A man needs a mission and funds with which to pursue that mission (and to support a family, if he wants to do that).
  • Portal:Contents/Portals: Currently, there's nothing there. We could use this to showcase minor portals that don't deserve top billing on the main page.

In short, it looks like prime candidates to cut are Lifestyle, Neomasculinity, Site News, and Wisdom. It's good to cut four at a time, due to the way the main page is set up. Jean Valjean (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

My original comment on the main page talk page:
There are a few portals that seem redundant: [[Portal:Masculinity]] and [[Portal:Neomasculinity]]. Also, perhaps [[Portal:Philosophy]] and [[Portal:Wisdom]]. In this vein, perhaps [[Portal:The Sexes]] could be changed to Femininity or Women, since we already have Masculinity/Neomasculinity. [[User:Conchis|Conchis]] ([[User talk:Conchis|talk]]) 22:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
My four proposed removals are Neomasculinity (redundant to Masculinity), Wisdom (redundant to Philosophy), Site News (no future), and The Sexes (redundant to Game). Conchis (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
What about Lifestyle and Girls? I wouldn't mind having some pinup- or centerfold- or DOMAI-style pics in the Girls section, but I guess Roosh wanted to keep the site porn-free. Does that portal have potential?
I've already cut Lifestyle (although I could bring it back), Neomasculinity, Site News, and Wisdom; next on the chopping block could be The Sexes (I agree with your reasoning, I guess) and maybe Girls (although if we get rid of both The Sexes and Girls then the closest we have to a portal about women is Game and maybe Mind). I'd say that Science could also be cut. Jean Valjean (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking better. Current thoughts:
  • I think we should bring back Lifestyle and merge all content under Travel into that one.
  • I've been thinking about the Wiki's appeal lately and I think a Girls portal would be good. And we should probably have Maxim-level pictures. Those are racy and will generally be NSFW, but they're not porn.
  • Sports seems to garner very little interest so far so cut it. A self-improvement emphasis would make us lean toward body anyway. We can always add later if we get an influx of interest.
  • Fewer main-page portals with very simple icons (nothing too elaborate) would add to the main page attractiveness. Once we settle on the final portals, I might take a shot at this.
  • If nationalism is one of two themes for the wiki, we ought to have a portal for it.
Conchis (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Is Nationalism more than a subset of Politics and/or Culture, though? I just wonder if there's really enough to say about nationalism, that it could fill up a portal. Currently, the nationalism article on Kings Wiki is very short, but I guess that's typical of top-level articles like that. Anyway, I'll restore it to the main page; hopefully someone will take a stab at it.
Okay, I'll cut Sports and bring back Lifestyle. So we're cutting Travel too? We can have sub-portals, if that's the kind of merge you're talking about. I notice Wikipedia only has eight portals on its main page, and then on wikipedia:Portal:Contents/Portals there are 12 portals with icons.
With regard to Work & Money, we probably don't have a lot of articles about those topics, and the content on RoK and RVF about those areas is also probably pretty weak (mostly because of vagueness), so maybe that should be cut too. I just don't think there's a lot of actionable advice offered by the manosphere in that area, other that a few tips like "use baking soda" and "stop using shampoo."
I think we've started using the word "women" rather than "girls" across most of the wiki, so are we going with that for the portal? I think it depends on the point of the portal. Strategies for gaming girls are mostly going to be applicable to younger women (since different strategies apply to different age groups, per The Female Life Cycle Theory Of Game), plus for eye candy purposes most guys probably want to look at girls. Jean Valjean (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Work & Money has future potential. There's plenty in the m-sphere to fill it up. We've gotten a lot done with the few active editors we have had. We'll get to it. Most of the ROK so far reminds me of the old LBYM communities (if they're still around), but others sites have a lot of "make more money"-type articles. I say, let Travel be a subsection of Lifestyle. We need to err toward consolidate until the portals get big enough to branch out on their own. Otherwise, our portals are empty or lame, and that doesn't give a good impression. Conchis (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Main page sections[edit]

Let's assess the main page sections.. first of all, what is the overall purpose of the main page? I would say that it's to (1) introduce newcomers to the wiki and its content, (2) attract repeat visitors, by giving them a place to go when they want to see the neomasculine view on current events, etc., (3) showcase some of our best content, thus giving users with particular interests an incentive to create high-quality content in those areas, (4) raise awareness and encourage readers to take action (both off-wiki and on-wiki) and (5) look pretty. (So for example, the left and right sides shouldn't be too out of balance; they should both extend to about the same length)

  • Portals: Do we want to occupy that real estate at the top-right of the page with portals that in many cases don't offer a lot of value at the moment, or do we want to fill it with something else, like featured content?
  • Featured article: Pretty much every wiki has a section like this, so I guess it'll stay. But do we want to continue having randomly rotating content, or have an "Article of the Now" that would be manually curated?
  • In the news: How's this working for us? Are we going to actually put any current events in the "Ongoing events" subsection, or should we kill that?
  • Did you know: This hardly ever gets updated; are we cool with that, do we want to try to revitalize that section by putting more effort into adding items, or do we want to shake things up a bit by devoting that space to something else?
  • Featured quote: How's that working for us? This section reminds me of what you see when you go to forbes.com, which is a hopefully thought-provoking or eloquent quote that could be about anything. Do we want to try to have recent quotes or quotes that are relevant to current events instead?
  • Roosh V Forum activity: How useful is this section; is it worth the real estate, given that we already have a "Latest RVF posts" link on the sidebar? At some point, I want to fix that so that the HTML tags, like all this "span" and "br" stuff, are removed.
  • Requested articles: Does anyone care about this section? We can create wish lists all we want, but it doesn't seem to attract people with knowledge in those areas to write those articles.
  • The "Follow @TheKingsWiki" link to Twitter adds a little bit of extra overhead when loading the main page (because of how it's set up) and thus far that Twitter feed only has 39 followers. It was Roosh's idea but I dunno if we want to continue it, especially given that the URL formatting in that feed isn't ideal.

Some alternatives:

  • RationalWiki has an "About" section at the top-left of its main page to explain the wiki's mission.
  • RationalWiki also has "WIGO" sections dealing with the world, the blogosphere, the clogosphere, and RationalWiki itself.
  • RationalWiki and Dramatica devotes more space than we do to their portals (and RationalWiki gives a selection of articles within those portals), but it puts them on the bottom-right or mid-right of its main page instead of the top-right.
  • Dramatica has a "Trending Articles" section in the middle-left of its main page.
  • Dramatica has a "Video of the Now" section in the middle-left of its main page (below Trending Articles).
  • Dramatica has a "Thread of the Now" section in the middle-left of its main page (below Video of the Now).
  • Dramatica has a "Picture of the Now" section at the top-right of its main page.
  • Dramatica has "Good New Articles" and "Articles that Need Help" sections at the bottom-right of its main page.
  • Dramatica has a Contact link as well. (We should probably do this too, because people need to know how to email us.)
  • Wikipedia has an "On this day..." section.
  • Wikipedia has an "Other areas of Wikipedia" section.
  • Some wikis have a "Popular Articles" section.

Jean Valjean (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You bring up a lot so I'll create subsections. I agree with the four purposes above, and would add 5) create comfort and familiarity. This involves a main page that looks like people "expect" a main page on a wiki to look. So it should contain similar elements and placement to other wikis wherever feasible. Conchis (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar[edit]

Let's assess the sidebar.. First, what is the purpose of the sidebar? I'd say, it's stuff that is important enough that space should be devoted to it whenever any page on the entire wiki is loaded. In other words, sidebar content pertains to stuff that's even more important than what we put on the main page. The sidebar (1) helps users navigate to the most extremely useful pages of the wiki, without having to go to any intermediate page (such as the main page or Special:SpecialPages), (2) tells people how they can donate, (3) makes key information, such as rules, available with one click (much like what Roosh has done on RVF, by having a prominent notice on every page reminding users to read the forum rules), and (4) helps users render pages differently (e.g. printable version).

So, what do you think of the order in which the sections are listed, and the contents of the various sections? Currently, it's:

  • Search I guess this should stay at the top for convenience.
  • Navigation Stuff like Recent Changes is going to be clicked all the time.
  • Interaction This one could really go anywhere on the sidebar
  • External links This is messier than I'd like it to be, and the link descriptions need more clarity and succinctness, if that's possible. Arguably, people should just bookmark stuff like "Latest RVF threads" in their browser. Also, the Kings Wiki Update Thread is great to draw attention to but I'm not sure the sidebar is the best place. "Kings Wiki Update Thread" is also a long link description. "Return of Kings" is an important sister site, but it's also linked from most articles on the wiki, so do we really need to do even more to raise readers' awareness of its existence?
  • Current events Does this even belong on the sidebar? It has kind of a coolness factor, though
  • Information This should be somewhere toward the bottom. Help:Contents, by the way, is not actually all that helpful at the moment. Project:About also sucks and needs to be updated and expanded.
  • Tools: People expect to see this at the very bottom, correct?

Other ideas:

  • For the search bar, have button(s) to search Return of Kings and/or Roosh V Forum (via the forum itself, or Google; however, this won't have all the bells and whistles of https://www.rooshvforum.com/search.php)

Jean Valjean (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Interaction[edit]

How do you like the current setup in which our interactions take place through the Round table, Blacksmith, and Tavern? I've often thought that the Tavern should be split into subtopics (like game, politics, etc.), but couldn't think of any snazzy names for those venues. Jean Valjean (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A lot of what should go on the talk pages of articles ends up in the tavern, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it will occasionally need to be archived. It could be problematic later when more people are participating because MediaWiki's kind of clutzy when people edit the same page simultaneously. For now, though, it seems good enough. Thumbs up with minor reservations. (I'm not too worried about it because the RVF is where these kinds of conversations are supposed to go. No need to try to duplicate that functionality here.) Conchis (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We can always move threads from the tavern to talk pages, and/or put a link to the discussion. Jean Valjean (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

.org or .com?[edit]

What do you want the domain to end with? Roosh was originally going to make this a .org; the .com was my idea, since I thought it was a mistake that Wikimedia was organized as a nonprofit.. However, Craigslist is a .org.. Jean Valjean (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

.com's been serving us well for the year we've been running. Why not buy .org and use it as an alternative domain? .org will make it more Wikipedia-like. Fokker (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
We should register the .org domain and redirect it to the .com domain so that other people, especially pranksters, phishers, squatters, and our enemies, can't register it. --Idris (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
.org and .com don't really mean anything any more. Plus, we're neither an organization nor a commercial enterprise. However, Idris is correct and Roosh should definitely at least register kingswiki.org. As for all the rest (.info, etc.) I doubt there's much benefit to securing them. Conchis (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

NSFW[edit]

Who looks at Kings Wiki at work anyway and expects there to be no reprisal? 108.162.219.84 08:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)