Forum:'Joke' wikicapes

Forums: Yew Grove > 'Joke' wikicapes

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 November 2010 by Cook Me Plox.

Few days ago, I noticed that Wikicape requests page said "all wikicapes must have a serious intention". Now, seeing the point of Wikicapes is to have some fun, I fail to see why they wouldn't be allowed, and had removed that since we didn't really had discussion on that. Later, Steler claimed that we actually did have that on the proposal on my talk page, so I decided to create this yg thread. My proposal is to allow joke wikicapes. Now, since you can still go oppose the creation of them in the requests page, it's also pretty pointless to have that as a rule. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying we should have nonsense discussions for things like "asdasdasd cape", but rather for things like failcape 3i+1 added, which would just bring fun.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. bad_fetus^talk 13:11, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I see no reason not to have joke capes. The wikicapes are a bit of fun and unofficial too. - User:Pharos 5/Signatures/Official/iPhone 13:42, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You don't get automatically sysopped after x number of wikicapes, so this isn't really an issue.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 13:47, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

~~Support~~ Oppose - Seeing the true point of the capes, makes me re-think my opinion Atlandy 14:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Gamertooth17 14:24, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If you want joke capes, make them in userspace with imageshack. User:Haloolah123/Sig 15:28, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

And why exactly? What's wrong with having fun wikicapes uploaded on the wiki on the project page? bad_fetus^talk 15:41, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

And who decides if a cape is a joke? User:TyA/sig 16:45, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have the discussion page. bad_fetus^talk 17:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We shouldn't be so uptight about everything. (: User:TyA/sig 16:45, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

We aren't...that's why we let anyone give them to anyone without discussion. But a bunch of joke wikicapes will just turn into spam. User:Haloolah123/Sig 17:38, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

You aren't going to give the same cape to a person five times, so it can never be spam. bad_fetus^talk 18:04, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While I don't mind the principal of joking around once and a while, allowing Joke Wikicapes will diminish the cape's purpose. As I said in the proposal, "They are images of skillcape-like objects with varying wiki related themes, implying that whoever they are granted to has shown some mastery over the associated topic." I previously defined "wiki related themes" as "actions such as uploading images, contributing to new articles, activity on the Yew Grove, and so forth. "Failing" and "Being Over 9000" are not wiki related themes, nor are the themes for any joke capes." By allowing capes that are not directly wiki related, the focus of the capes shift slightly from an enjoyable opportunity to commend fellow Wikians for their efforts to simply joking around. Should this happen excessively (and it will not take a lot), the purpose of the capes will be lost completely, so I it's best to not open the door to this at all. User:Stelercus/Signature 18:41, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikicapes is to have fun. I'd be shocked if anyone supporting it supported to have it as a serious thing, it's meant to be entertaining. Thus, joke capes does not diminish the cape's purpose. bad_fetus^talk 18:50, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

By the definition and purpose I wrote when I proposed them, they do. While the capes are supposed to be entertaining, the main purpose is to commend fellow Wikians for their efforts. For the reasons I have already mentioned, I feel it would be unwise to make the proposed alteration the criteria. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:27, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Capes like yg cape would still give a sense of achievement. It's obvious which ones are meant for jokes and which ones are not. bad_fetus^talk 19:38, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

The two need to remain separate as to not confuse the purpose of the other. Yes, if we had joke capes, it would be obvious that some are intended as jokes. However, that would require we change this sentence here from "Each Wikicape corresponds to a topic on the wiki and can be received if you've shown some mastery over the topic," to "Each Wikicape corresponds to a topic on the wiki (except the joke capes) and can be received if you've shown some mastery over the topic (unless it's a joke cape, which are just jokes)." I have defined what a Wikicape is several times, and joke capes do not fit the description. They do not have the same purpose or effect as regular Wikicapes, and therefore should not be included with the others. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:18, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Fine then, just change the damn description. bad_fetus^talk 19:28, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

We could change the description of a featured image from "a picture intended to display the highest quality images on the wiki" to "a picture intended to display the highest quality images on the wiki and make little jokes here and there", but it would still be a bad idea. User:Stelercus/Signature 02:21, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Stelercus is right. Allowing joke wikicapes confuses their ulterior purpose. If we had capes like the failcape being thrown around under the official insignia of a project page, it won't be pretty. There is a clear line between what is joke and what is not, and we should not cross it. --Liquid^Talk 18:55, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment We already have joke userboxes, and talk like a pirate jokes, and konami code...the list goes on. Do we need anymore jokes?

Atlandy

18:58, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with having many jokes? The only thing it does is to encourage users to be around since they'll have fun when editing. bad_fetus^talk 19:03, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment -

“	Remember, these capes are just for fun, and do not represent any authority or superior knowledge over the related topic.	”
	— RuneScape:Wikicapes

User:TyA/sig 19:06, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. What that means is that it's informal and does not represent an official commendation from the wiki, not that it's intended to be a joke. --Liquid^Talk 19:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here is saying that all wikicapes are intended to be a joke. It's obvious which ones are and which ones aren't. Nobody is stupid enough to consider "this user has done great contributions to yg threads" a joke. bad_fetus^talk 19:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

The clause Zamorak quoted only serves to ensure the principals of RS:AEAE still apply. The phrase "just for fun" should never be interpreted to mean that they only exist for entertainment purposes. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:28, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Again, nobody here is saying that all wikicapes are intended to be a joke. It would still give the users a sense of achievement when you give them a yg cape. bad_fetus^talk 19:38, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

I only said that to clarify what the above quote meant, and I never said anyone wants every Wikicape to be a joke. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:18, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Blast it, people. Let us have some fun. We don't need to be serious about everything. Dave Lopo 22:28, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support, to a certain extent - I don't see anything wrong with one or two fun ones, because not everything should be totally official. But it definitely shouldn't get to a point where the main focus of them is just to be funny, as that wasn't their original intended purpose, right? I don't know exactly where the line falls between a bit of fun and ruining wikicapes but I'm sure it could be discussed if people are open to the idea of it. User:Insaneular/Sig 01:05, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe that joke wikicape is known as a userbox. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 01:30, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

No, as wikicapes don't fit in ubxes... JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 16:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

My point is that users already have a venue for silliness on their userpages, and they don't need a much more official project (wikicapes) to be silly with as well. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

19:35, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference. You don't go add a userbox on my page, I go add a userbox on my page. You go give the wikicape to me though, I dont give it to myself. bad_fetus^talk 19:47, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

I've been "given" userboxes in the past, such as Template:Userbox/Talk Stalk, User:Cook Me Plox/DGAF, and Template:Userbox/Annoyed. Just because people don't do that doesn't mean the option is not avaliable to them, and given that option, I don't see why an actual official project needs to be opened to the same type of silliness. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

19:52, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well, what they've been doing violates RS:DEU and I don't want random people editing my userpage. That's obviously is not the case with a user talk though. bad_fetus^talk 20:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what they did. They posted on my talk or talked to me in-game and suggested I use the userbox in question. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

20:10, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per Psycho and all. 222 ^talk 08:03, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 16:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Keep them separate - Why isn't the Requests for Bearcatship page on the RuneScape namespace? Why don't we nominate users to become Worst User of the Month? Why don't we have a Crappiest Images page? Ti en 23:42, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

^I loled 222 ^talk 00:29, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Because if I was going to nominate someone for Worst User of the Month, someone would go all RS:UTP on my front door. User:TyA/sig 02:08, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Unless the nominations were simply for fun, which was what I was implying. Awarding a cape to a user because he/she fails isn't nice either, but it's "just for fun." Ti en 02:59, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment/Proposal - The original idea was to have a set of serious "official" wikicapes, like the ones I listed on my subpage. And then users can create their own if they want about whatever, and just give it to each other. But it wouldn't be listed on the official page and official template; they'd just be personal. We could always have a subpage list of joke wikicapes that serve no purpose. It really doesn't matter if it turned into a mess or spamfest; it's all part of the fun. So this would be dividing the capes into "official" and "non-official". To make a cape official, originally the idea was to ask me until the capes became popular and could make another process. But I can't do that now so you guys sort that out. By the way, I just can't help popping back in again and again. (I'd come back to stay if there was no Oasis among other reasons. Chicken7 ^>talk 11:02, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

What about having them under another subpage instead of having them under your namespace? Something like RuneScape:Wikicapes/Joke/<insert cape name here> would work better imho. bad_fetus^talk 16:09, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

How would it be any different? Templates work just the same no matter what space they are in. User:Haloolah123/Sig 22:51, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

How about people upload custom wikicapes to imageshack, and the wikicape message template be modified to accommodate a custom image? Seems like the perfect solution to me. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

07:40, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

That's easy to do. And I'm sure no one will get mad about that (I'm also sure someone will collect them on a user subpage).

Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L}

07:42, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

I do get mad about that, it's completely different from the proposal. If this passes, this means wikicapes will be around without any discussion. That's just pointless, and I'd rather not have them at all. bad_fetus^talk 16:05, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, reading it again, what I said looks to have no point, so I'll clarify it here. When they are on userspace, that means anyone can go create any random wikicape, which would be chaotic. Then, I don't see why you are opposing having them on Template:Wikicapes/Joke/wikicape name since it clearly distinguishes the difference, which has been the only reason brought up for opposition so far. Also, I fail to see why someone supported Konami code would oppose this, since this only affects usertalk whereas Konami code affected every single namespace. Seriously, this solves the "problem" that the opposition brought, therefore you currently haven't presented any reasons to oppose this. bad_fetus^talk 12:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

If it's in the userspace, it does not matter how chaotic it is, because we can't regulate what people do with their userspace if it's not abusive. I take issue with joke wikicapes appearing in any content namespace (including the template/project namespaces), because this instantly implies that their existence is supported by consensus. In response to your comment regarding the Konami code, I supported keeping it in the mainspace because it's not bothering anybody and provides a few seconds of entertainment at no cost. A large button at the top of the page saying "click me, I redirect to the cabbage article" would be awful, but an Easter egg goes unnoticed unless you're looking for it. If joke wikicapes are given any place in the file, template, or project namespaces, they will instantly be intermingled with legitimate content just by virtue of being given a place there, which is not acceptable. The only way to truly keep joke wikicapes and real wikicapes separate is to keep the joke capes in the userspace. User:Stelercus/Signature 02:21, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't brought any reason why we shouldn't have them in those namespaces. We already have userboxes in those. What's the difference? bad_fetus^talk 13:57, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes are not the same as Wikicapes. If they were, they would never have been created in the first place. Userboxes allow users to display information about themselves in a way that is both space efficient and eye appealing, which is deserving of a few pages in the Projectspace. Wikicapes, on the other hand, are to give other users some recognition for their efforts in one area or another, but not to amuse. Because their purposes are similar, we must preserve their differences so the Wikicapes do not simply become a redundant variation of Userboxes. Walking into the realm of Joke Wikicapes would make it much easier to take additional steps away from the purpose of the Wikicapes in the future (as well as being a big step in itself), and therefore should be avoided completely. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:26, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how wikicapes can possibly turn into userboxes. You don't award yourself wikicapes. That's the difference. Also, on the userbox example, as you must have noticed, there also are joke purposed userboxes. Is their purpose to save space and appeal the eye? Obviously not, but they do not ruin the purpose of serious userboxes. Also, putting joke wikicapes under their subpage already distinguishes them, so I still don't see your point. Also, I disagree they take away from the purpose. The purpose is to have fun. That's it. bad_fetus^talk 13:17, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

You can award yourself Wikicapes, actually. As I said in the proposal, there are intentionally no rules surrounding how Wikicapes are given out. I don't mind joke userboxes, because userboxes are supposed to be versatile in that way. The only purpose of Wikicapes is not to have fun. Yes, having fun can be a purpose on some occasions, but no Wikicape should exist for that purpose only. Putting them on a subpage does not do us much to distinguish them, because it still creates an exception to the definition of what a Wikicape is supposed to be. Why shouldn't we change the definition? Honestly, I don't want to simply because I don't want that to be the way Wikicapes work. I want them to be legitimate, user-given awards always, not just most of the time. This is what makes sense to me. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:39, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter if there are joke wikicapes as long as they are easily distinguishable? The wikicapes that exist purely for joke purposes wouldn't even be under rs:wcapes, they would be under rs:wcapes/joke. I fail to see how that ruins the purpose of all the wikicapes since the difference is still obvious, therefore does not affect 'serious' wikicapes. bad_fetus^talk 18:40, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support Proposal Per Chicken7. Why don't we have "joke" capes and "official" wikicapes, but keep them separate? 10hailfire10 19:28, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken didn't support. He offered the alternative solution of putting "joke" capes in the userspace. User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:35, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Mini-proposal - Create a separate, highly customisable wikicape template like "Wikicape custom" and have it just mentioned in on RuneScape:Wikicapes like "If you have a custom cape to give a user, see "Template:Wikicape custom" for details.". How about that? Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 02:30, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

As I just said, if we allow joke wikicapes to appear in content namespaces in any way, shape, or form, it's just as bad as making them official. User:Stelercus/Signature 09:28, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Putting them on the content or project namespaces IS making them official. --Liquid^Talk 10:00, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

And may I ask, what's wrong with having them official? Userboxes are alread official. What's the difference? bad_fetus^talk 16:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

It makes the other ones seem worse. At least in my mind. User:Haloolah123/Sig 16:43, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Why? Adding them under joke already distinguishes them. bad_fetus^talk 16:50, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think joke userboxes are ok because they either use images that are already on the wiki or they have an image inserted that is uploaded to an outside host. A joke wikicape would need to be uploaded to the wiki. It'd be an image with no official function on the wiki, just sort of hanging there for a few users to laugh about. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 21:28, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support Evil's idea - So it would be similar to using Template:Userbox to create joke userboxes, right? Maybe it could look like

{{Wikicape
|id       =   Cape name
|colour   =   Cape colour
|trim     =   Whether the cape is trimmed (yes or no)
|trim-c   =   Trim colour (optional)
|image    =   Cape image or symbol (where the skill icon is on skillcapes)
|info     =   A description of why the cape was awarded, eg "Awarded for making 9001 constructive edits"
}}

--User:Real Not Pure/Signature 14:42, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not nearly that simple. Userboxes are Wiki/HTML tables in template format, but images are files, which cannot be manipulated by template parameters. User:Stelercus/Signature 18:35, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Plus, it'd still be as chaotic. bad_fetus^talk 18:40, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

What if we made them in Wiki/HTML, so we changed the shape of the userbox template to make it into a skillcape shape? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:34, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

That's not possible, sorry. User:Stelercus/Signature 15:40, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? We're restricted to rectangles when it comes to shapes? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:55, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can also curve the angles of the rectangles slightly (like {{Header}}), but yes. HTML tables only allow for 90 degree angles and simple cells, making it impossible to do what you just proposed. User:Stelercus/Signature 16:28, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

What if we do something like this? @@@@@@ bad_fetus^talk 16:57, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

. User:Stelercus/Signature 17:52, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

That actually is possible, but only partly. We can put up an image of a blank wikicape, then use the position css variable to move a second image on top of the wikicape. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

06:29, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

^ Awesome idea! Can you put a trial in a sandbox or somethin'? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:49, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

That still makes no official fun wikicapes though, and still is chaotic. As I've already stated, I'd rather not have them at all if they are going to be like that. bad_fetus^talk 13:09, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support Original Proposal - With apologies, Stelercus, I take the opposite position from your earliest(?) one. I think that joke WikiCapes are a far better idea than "serious" ones, for the same reason people complain about them in RS, but even more so: they invite destructive levels of competition. Anyone looking for a 9000+ cape can simply pad their edits, if they take such things too seriously, but joke capes (yes, even "epic fail" capes) seem a little bit more relaxed to me. If you disagree, you can always send me a "Bronze Dagger Cape", lol. --TheLastWordSword 20:25, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're coming from. Wikicapes will not invite any negative competition (or any at all, for that matter), simply because they don't represent anything anyone is obligated to recognize. They have no requirements (so the 9000+ cape would never exist) or criteria for determining who is eligible to be given one, so there can never be legitimate competition regarding Wikicapes. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:48, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I stand corrected on the "serious" capes, but doesn't the "Bronze Dagger" cape sound really cool? :) TheLastWordSword 15:59, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, not at all. User:Stelercus/Signature 18:28, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - First, despite the reaction I'm sure to get for this, I don't think using Jagex's or Youtube's copyrighted images in this way is fair due to purpose.

Second, why have you created a bureaucratic process for nominating and approving wikicapes? Why can't every wikicape be a "joke" when the purpose is to have fun? Why does anyone care whether the "Epic Fail" wikicape is serious or official when it accomplishes the same purpose of having fun regardless of its approval? Why does anybody care whether the wikicape image is hosted on the wiki or in Photobucket when Photobucket accomplishes the same task without a nonsense attempt at making it official? As the wikicape approval process is as much a walled garden as the FIMG approval process, approval of the "Good YG Person" wikicape doesn't have any serious consensus, so why can't the cape be created and handed out at will without any process? Why is this a project?

Forgive the perceived bitterness of repeated questions; I just felt like questions better phrased my opinion than statements. It's just that, if someone makes a "joke" wikicape, uploads it to photobucket, and uses it on his userpage, the small amount of "official" gained by using a FIMG nomination process goes out the window, and why bother trying to gain that small amount of "official" in the first place? If the purpose is actually to have fun, then there's no reason, which leads me to believe that some people are looking to take some pride from this. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm perfectly fine with peer recognition, but I personally prefer it to be truthfully clear-cut when it's happening. Leftiness 20:09, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Then it won't be consistent with other wikicapes. Plus, that'd be chaotic. bad_fetus^talk 14:21, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Aren't userboxes chaotic? Why do we need a special process just because the userbox is now shaped like a cape? Leftiness 00:46, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Because userboxes are not like Wikicapes, nor are Wikicapes just for fun in the sense you're talking about. I've listed my counterarguments to your points in this thread already, so I suppose continuing to argue will not do either of us any good. User:Stelercus/Signature 01:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

As I found out earlier in this thread, capes are images, and can't be made as easily as userboxes using Wiki/HTML language. We'd need a special process to get around that. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Users are already able to create Wikicapes with various image editing programs (like Photoshop), so we don't need a "special process" to fix the nonexistent problem. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:43, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I want to have some "joke" capes along with some "official" capes. I don't understand the desire to create a sort of legitimacy with these capes at all. They're the same concept as userboxes; you've created userboxes in the shape of a cape, and you want to hand them out "for fun," but you also want them being "official." You're treating the act of hosting the image on the wiki as if it's "official" or prestiegious - like it's something to be proud of if you receive one of these "official" capes. Official fun? What? Per Psycho at the top.

Really, the only way I think these would have a purpose separate from that of a userbox is if criteria were created and a consensus discussion took place each time a user were nominated to receive such an award. If there's no criteria or consensus, then there's no legitimacy, and the feigned legitimacy of the current system bothers me. Leftiness 04:18, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Question If these capes are "official", and I think someone was awarded one whom I believe does not merit such a cape, do I or any other individual have the right to revoke it? Of course bloody not. Which means they are officially allowed but not official awards. By logical reasoning, joke capes should also be allowed. As long as they are in the name of fun and no one is getting their feeling hurt, go for it. This is insane how some of you people try to make crap all official and proper for one of what is supposed to be a fun aspect of this site. Are you serious? Really? I'd like to tell you to go get drunk or laid but a lot of you aren't old enough. --Degenret01 04:33, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

By virtue of saying "I'd like to tell you to go get drunk or laid but a lot of you aren't old enough," you're still saying you want us to get drunk or laid, even if you say "but a lot of you aren't old enough." I shouldn't have to tell you why that's unacceptable and a violation of RS:UTP. User:Stelercus/Signature 09:30, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't use such expressions, I'd say there's overwhelming community support to allow users to use vulgar language when it's "more effective" than polite language. "Drunk" and "laid" are no more offensive than "dick," and they're arguably more effective than saying "loosen up." "You aren't old enough" is a logical observation, so I don't really see a problem - especially since he didn't target anybody personally but the opinion of supporting these capes in general while opposing "joke" capes. Leftiness 19:29, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

“	No user deserves to be treated with disrespect, no matter the situation. If you have a disagreement do not try to solve the issue with verbal insults or by using profanities.	”
	— RS:UTP

User:Stelercus/Signature 19:55, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

In real life if a friend has food on their face do I not tell them because it is rude? No, I tell them so they can wipe it off. In this case by the same token I am making an observation that you could loosen up, and it is even more evidenced by such a strong rigid reaction to what I said. You are taking something light and fun and trying to be so stern and strict, and no one is enjoying it. You, Mr Stelercus, are killing these capes before they begin. --Degenret01 02:03, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

There is a massive difference between telling someone they have food on their face and recommending they have sex with someone. 222 ^talk 05:33, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

There is a degree of difference, but in both cases it is meant as helpful advice.--Degenret01 05:37, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

The point is: he was using rude terminology to make his point "more effective," as I pointed out above. Since "Get laid" is as much a substitute for "Loosen up" as "Don't be a dick" is for "Be polite," I really don't understand the problem here... Leftiness 05:38, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

"You, Mr Stelercus, are killing these capes before they begin." I am convinced the opposite is true, though continuing to debate the joke cape idea is beating a dead horse, as everyone has made their decisions already. Regardless, I can't be convinced that the intention of the sentence "I'd like to tell you to go get drunk or laid," was in any way positive. User:Stelercus/Signature 09:28, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Stelercus, if Degen had phrased it as: "Seriously, go live a little. Things this inconsequential shouldn't cause so much stress.", would you have made any comment? As Lefty said, its the same thing with different wording. Degen, would you say that this is basically what that sentence meant? If so, just <del> it and re-write it. This argument really didnt need to occur. Although, to be fair, Stelercus did oppose the change from DBAN to DBAD showing distaste for certain language as it may offend some. - [Pharos] 10:10, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hey we already have stuff like chatboxs and wikifuana its a community thing. Have a go at it. ;D Good luck supporters.Meter55 03:42, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Compromise

Looking at this discussion, it's possible for both ends of the argument to get what they want without upsetting the other. I think the following should work.

A template will be created "Wikicape Custom" with parameters for a custom image URL, colors for the message box, title text, and so forth.
These images must be uploaded to another website, but can be uploaded here if they pass the same discussion process as official Wikicapes.
They will not be featured on any project page, as multiple images may be created for the same purpose or not be acceptable for the projectspace (for whatever reason). Users are free to make a catalog of any existing custom images in their userspace, however.
The rules regarding official Wikicapes will go unaltered, including the rule against joke capes.

User:Stelercus/Signature 13:27, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nom. User:Stelercus/Signature 13:40, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 15:47, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Strong Oppose - See Chess' reasoning. Just let it be allowed, that's all. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 18:38, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Yay for compromising! User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:04, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose Joke Capes Altogether User:Real Not Pure/Signature 22:23, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Where's your reason? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 01:48, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - The title of this section is highly misleading, there is no compromise here at all. If the above discussion has oppose discussion, this is exactly what would happen. The whole point of the above proposal is so that we can have the wikicapes on the project namespace so that people can easily find and use them, and to stop creating highly stupid wikicapes when this is being done. For example, I strongly oppose a OVER 9000 EDITS cape, since it's objective, and pointless to have a wikicape, when your "compromise" allows it. Seriously, I'd just not have any joke capes at all. bad_fetus^talk 17:45, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Steler's compromise allows joke capes, but not on the namespace, so those that want them can have them, and those that don't want them don't have to deal with discussions. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 21:44, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

What you don't get is that they already are allowed, we do not control what people do in their namespace. bad_fetus^talk 10:48, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

No, I understand the point of this thread, and I get that you want official joke capes, but Steler is trying to avoid upsetting the opposers that don't want discussions over stupid capes. Having an easily editable template, however, makes them official in the same way as userboxes are, so those that want a serious cape can make one, and those that want a joke cape can make one. I'm trying to support your proposal, as I have way up there somewhere, but I'm also attempting to be diplomatic, and not annoy the wikians against this. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:44, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that'd be very different to userboxes. RuneScape:Userboxes has a list of userboxes, no matter if they are joke intended or not. Same doesn't apply to wikicapes according to this "compromise". Oh, and the template really doesn't matter. I could go create it at [[User:Chessmaster|blahblah]] without this passing. bad_fetus^talk 17:04, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

If I am correct, the only thing you want here is for joke Wikicapes to exist. All other requests you have made, including a list of joke capes in the Projectspace, only serve to support that one desire: joke Wikicapes. At the same time, I am only trying to maintain the integrity of the Wikicape project as a whole, which would require that Wikicapes don't become a variation of userboxes. In the same way you consider an "Over 9000 Edits" cape harmful, I consider joke capes harmful, because Wikicapes are always supposed to be legitimate. Once this stops being the case, Wikicapes will be no different than userboxes, defeating their purpose entirely. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:47, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's not even close to what I proposed. Joke wikicapes already can and do exist. That would make this thread completely pointless in the first place. My proposal was to make them official and put them on the project namespace. Now, for the 'wikicapes will be no different than userboxes' thing, they are and always will be completely different. You award wikicapes to the others. You take userboxes yourself. That is, and should be the difference. bad_fetus^talk 15:52, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Whyever you can't "award" someone a userbox is beyond me. I fail to see how the shape of the template with text involving your personal achievement makes it any different. Leftiness 17:56, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, you technically can award someone a userbox, but that's not their purpose. That has no difference from saying that the current wikicapes have no difference at all from any joke wikicapes being allowed since you also technically can use a current wikicape as a joke. For example, you could give someone a yg cape because they made a typo in a discussion that you found to be funny, but that's not it's purpose. Thus, saying that userboxes will have no difference from wikicapes is invalid. bad_fetus^talk 18:03, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

You can award yourself a Wikicape and another user can award you a userbox. That may not be the intention of either, but there are no barriers stopping you. Whether or not that is the purpose of userboxes/Wikicapes is irrelevant, as you can make it so. "For example, you could give someone a yg cape because they made a typo in a discussion that you found to be funny, but that's not it's purpose." That's a valid point, until you consider that the aforementioned "Failcape" can never be legitimate in the same sense that the other capes are, but a YG cape in and of itself can be. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:33, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

If we allow joke capes, and I'm sorry to say this, they will not be any different to userboxes. There isn't a policy saying "You can't award yourself a Wikicape, and userboxes cannot be awarded to another user". TTherefore, capes for "BEING AWESOME" and "PWNING" will start to appear, then we'll get pointless "Lolcapes" being submitted to the projectspace, and the editors monitoring this will be overwhelmed. If we let this happen, we'll just have cape-shaped userboxes. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 22:22, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It also doesn't address the argument of false legitimacy; I'd rather all capes be considered "jokes" in the same way userboxes are since there really isn't a difference. Leftiness 18:30, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Chess is entirely correct, this is not a compromise. None of these "awards" will be official, since anyone can give one to anyone else at any time. The joke capes should be in the same place the non jokes are.--Degenret01 15:03, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah I read RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA but the point is Wikipedia has barnstars that don't use an "official template", but instead handed to editors from other editors. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 18:38, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

These will be handed to others just like the barnstars... and RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA is overused; they allow people to edit, should we stop people from editing? RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA is just saying that their policies don't necessarily apply here.

Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L}

19:10, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The current wikicapes don't have any difference from "joke" wikicapes. Wikicapes are userboxes in a different shape. Whether you can or can't award them to someone is irrelevant; the false legitimacy provided by a FIMG discussion along with the stated purpose of being "just for fun" while not allowing "jokes" makes the entire concept one, big contradiction.

I'm not questioning why you aren't allowing "joke" capes into the project space; I'm questioning why you have capes in the project space to begin with. I'm questioning why you think there's a difference between userboxes and wikicapes just because you've added a bureaucratic process, and I'm questioning why there's a bureaucratic process in the first place. If these were truly "just for fun," then there wouldn't be a problem with putting the "jokes" with the "official" capes, and, if you weren't trying to take some sort of pride from the receipt of a cape, then you wouldn't be looking to approve or disapprove capes, and you wouldn't grant approved capes a space in the project namespace as if they were official. Unless there's a consensus decision made each time someone wants to create or award a cape, they are just cape-shaped userboxes. Leftiness 16:43, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was emailed by a concerned user to come and clarify what the initial idea and purpose was. of the wikicapes. When I first started creating them I didn't even think about crazy jovial capes until Iiii I I I spammed my page with them. It got me thinking, and I thought that if people wanted to make their own about some crazy "in-joke" or whatever (*cough* liquid helms) so be it, but don't turn the actual list into a mess for new users trying out the system. If we had one list of all wikicapes, and joke capes were included, the list size would be exponential and an utter mess. So the general idea I would've proposed if I was here was to have Template:Wikicape, with the parameters for all the "official" capes, and then include some kind of custom parameters so you could add a custom image, title and text. I never got around to implementing the latter, but that was the general idea. The joke capes wouldn't need a list then, as each instance was unique. So that was the general idea. I'm not going to get involved with the argument above, so I'm a neutral or whatever, and I won't be answering any comments or concerns. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 05:38, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to put the joke wikicapes in the same list though. Just do something like:

==Wikicapes==

*blah

===See Also===

[Runescape:Joke wikicapes]]

Problem solved. bad_fetus^talk 14:26, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. ʞo oɔ 01:19, November 21, 2010 (UTC)