WikiIndex talk:Community portal

Discussion Pages
 * Archive 1 (2006)
 * Note: Older conversations have been archived. Please view the 'Archive' links in the box on the right to review old discussion subjects.

If you have a question about WikiIndex or directed towards all the WikiIndex people, and it's not already answered in the FrequentlyAskedQuestions, please post it to ... um ... (should I tell people to post it here to WikiIndex talk:Community portal, or to WikiIndex talk:Community talk ?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidCary, 21:56, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikis with same name
Is there any policy on how to handle multiple wikis with the same name? When trying to add Programming Wiki, I found Programming Wiki, which is a Wikia. This must have happened before, so how is that normally handled? Also, is this the right place to ask such questions? Ahy1 19:09, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Hello Arild, We do not have a good way to communicate on this wiki. For those of us who read it daily, it works fine, but for weekly or occasional folks it is a wee bit confusing. Any suggestions would help. Second, we have been using disambiguation pages for multiple wiki with the same name. We also have tried placing two templates on the same page, but no decisions have been made. Will try to find you examples. Best, MarkDilley


 * I've started a page for your Wikka Wakka programming wiki here: Programming Wiki (hypexr.org) TedErnst | talk 15:05, 14 August 2006 (EDT)


 * It is not my wiki. I just found it and tried to add it to WikiIndex. Now I know what to do next time I run in to multiple wikis with the same name. Thanks. Ahy1 15:18, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

If there are two wikis with the same name, I usally distinguish them by engine. So I think that there should be a 'Programimng wiki' and 'Programming wikia'. Swordman 08:32, 10 September 2011 (PDT)


 * Two more wiki that share a name:


 * http://chrono.wikia.com/wiki/Chrono_Wiki
 * http://www.chronowiki.org/wiki/Chrono_Wiki
 * There seems to be a little disagreement about which one gets the WikiIndex Chrono Wiki page.
 * They are two separate wiki, and require two separate WikiIndex pages, right?--DavidCary 19:02, 3 November 2011 (PDT)


 * The Chrono wiki on Wikia, has now been renamed "Cronopedia" by its users. That would seem to change that problem. David Shepheard (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2013 (PST)

singular versus plural
I fail to see any significant difference between Category:Languages and Category:Language. Could we merge those pages somehow? Preferably under the singular form, to avoid the WikiNamePluralProblem. --DavidCary 22:36, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Please David, go ahead and make this wiki better!! Best, MarkDilley

OK, I made Category:Languages redirect to Category:Language. Then I obsessively removed all references to Category:Languages. Anything else I should do about that?

While I was doing that, I noticed Category:constructed languages and Category:ConLang. Should I merge those as well? Under which name? Or perhaps Category:constructed language, since I have this anti-plural vendetta? --DavidCary 10:21, 24 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Is there a policy on plural/singular? Wikipedia uses plurals for categories, which makes sense to me... the important things are to do what is most intuitive for users of this wiki (linking from pages about wikis), and to be consistent. --Chris Watkins/Singkong2005 talk 00:28, 19 December 2006 (PST)


 * Is there now a policy for whether to have categories as singular or plural? At Category talk:Weblogs I asked about two categories and the reply was “Please condense the two categories! .., redirect the singular to the plural? ..” --EarthFurst 16:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)


 * No, exactly the opposite:
 * There is a policy of using a singular name if at all possible -- to solve the wiki:WikiNamePluralProblem -- on the original wiki (for technical reasons that may not apply here).
 * There's currently no policy here on WikiIndex.
 * I prefer using the singular -- perhaps because I became comfortable using the singular everywhere on the original wiki.
 * --DavidCary 20:57, 5 September 2007 (EDT)


 * How do categories work is using plural: ".. Category:Lisp should be a subcategory of Category:ProgrammingLanguages". And Category:Wiki Location includes Category:Cities as a subcategory.  I like the idea of each category have a singular name (and not plural). --EarthFurst 23:49, 22 February 2010 (EST)
 * I'd prefer the plural form, although I know the singular in Wikipedia etc. It seems to be that the category page titles seem more reasonable. But whatever the decision is made, one form should be redirected to another. I really don't want to block the singular form principle for wikiindex. Best regards --Wolf | talk 02:58, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Still wondering if categories should be singular or plural. Personally I don't care which (singular or plural), because I've found something at WikiIndex which concerns me more (ie. CamelCase). I prefer things to be correctly spelled and using CamelCase at WikiIndex seems unnecessary for dictionary words (example: video games). I'm fine with CamelCase being used for proper names (example: WikiIndex). By the way, Vikings Wiki is currently in Category:Languages (plural) and the redirect doesn't result in it being in listed in Category:Language (singular). --EarthFurst 00:45, 27 November 2010 (PST)

I now have preference for categories being plural. I think WikiNamePluralProblem can be solved with. --EarthFurst 02:20, 6 February 2011 (PST)


 * My opinion is that categories should be singular (unless there is gramatical reason for plural). Take the language/languages category issue - lets say we have a wiki which discusses the Spanish language - and only the Spanish language . . . that is just one language!  On the other hand, pedantics could argue that if that same spanish wiki went into Category:Languages - they might think or presume that the wiki discussed more than one language!  I think it is a given that categories are a collection of wikis on the same subject, so it can be transcluded that Category:Language will contain wikis on many differing (hopefully) languages.
 * Category:Wiki, and Category:Wiki Engine both work as a singular, though Category:Countries and Category:Railways probably both work best as a plural - so there probably isn't definitive answer.
 * In terms of redirects - they don't work properly for categories. Take this example - those 43 entries will not appear in the correct long-hand category, and all will need to be re-categorised - either manually or by a bot.
 * I agree that CamelCase should not be used - unless there is a specific need to do so. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 10:37, 2 December 2012 (PST)

category name
There are several wiki that talk *about* wiki is emphatically on-topic. It's a kind of meta-discussion. The original wiki is *not* such a wiki -- people at the original wiki try to push such conversations to Meatball ( Wiki:WikiOnWiki ).

I want to tag those wiki (but not the original wiki) with an appropriate category tag. What should I name this category? [ [category:wiki on wiki] ]? [ [category:metadiscussion] ]? [ [category:self-analysis] ]? Something else? --DavidCary 10:21, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

broken template
The wiki template (used on most pages of the WikiIndex) is broken. Since it effects many pages, should we move the discussion here to WikiIndex talk:Community portal, or leave the discussion to where we started it at Talk:PlanetMath?

Today I see that someone (?) fixed the "RecentChanges" part of the wiki template, but now the "wiki_wikinode_URL =" part of the template is broken. For example, --DavidCary 12:20, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Visual -- there is a valid-looking wikinode URL passed as a parameter to the template, but it doesn't get displayed in the normal page view.
 * Hooze -- has no wikinode (yet).


 * User:Smiddle, Sean Fennel and I have all had our hands in this template, both breaking and trying to fix it. For the time being, I've simply reverted it to the last copy that we know was working properly.  I'd guess User:Smiddle will give it another try at some point.  Thanks for helping to sluth it out, David!  TedErnst | talk 12:30, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

Categorising by licence
It's a surprising ommission, but from what I can tell you aren't categorising sites by licence. Any thoughts on doing that? --Kingboyk 14:02, 27 October 2006 (EDT)


 * This is a community generated site, so if you'd like to work on categorizing by license, please feel warmly welcomed to do so. TedErnst | talk 16:56, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

license discussion
I see that discussions about "What license should we use for our wiki?" are scattered across thousands of wiki. I keep thinking that having one central place to summarize all the arguments and facts about copyrights and licenses (as they apply to wiki) would be much better. Perhaps wiki license ?
 * WikiIndex talk:Copyrights
 * Gutenberg:The Wiki License
 * the mysterious GNU Wiki License
 * the mysterious Creative Commons wiki license
 * the TUNES wiki uses the bugroff license
 * Proposal:License
 * CommunityWikiLicense
 * what license does the OOo wiki use?
 * "Pick a License, Any License" has a nice chart comparing the most popular software licenses. DavidCary would like a similar chart comparing the most popular wiki licenses -- but not a thousand slightly-different versions of such a chart.

On a related note, what about talking about licenses in general? Is there some wiki (other than WikiIndex) where discussing software licenses, music licenses, etc. would be more on-topic ? --DavidCary 11:04, 11 April 2007 (PDT)


 * Shouldn't there be an individual detailed article about each wiki licence, with them all being put into a category? (Category:Wiki License perhaps.) If you did something like that, there could be a summary of each licence in the category and that summary could point to the more detailed articles.


 * I think a category/many articles approach might also help a visitor interested in a specific licence get forwarded onto information about specific wikis that are actually using that license. David Shepheard 15:06, 12 January 2010 (EST)

cooperative research
Is http://cooperativeresearch.org/ a wiki ?


 * It seems like it, but I'd ask them just to make sure. &mdash; User:Sean Fennel@ 02:35, 26 November 2006 (EST)

RPG Wiki?
Does anyone know a wiki for amature role playing games (like on Yahoo Groups and web forums and such)? I can't seem to find one. --24.172.195.239 11:57, 24 January 2007 (PST)

Yes. There is an entire Category:Role-playing of wiki, such as RPG and others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:DavidCary 17:36, 8 February 2007

the other wiki index
You can see how easy it would be for people intending to type one of these to accidentally type the other:
 * http://wikindex.com/
 * http://wikiindex.com/

Now I'm sure the first thing that comes to your mind is that we need to launch some sort of "defensive counter-attack" responding their "attack on our identity". Naturally that involves high-powered ...

Or, I suppose, we could Do the Right Thing. Promote wiki:WikiPeace.

So, what specifically is the Right Thing to do? --DavidCary 11:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Hi. I just discovered wikiindex.org-- I am the creator of wikindex.com, and obviously it looks like we had similar ideas.  This site has gone the route of having a wiki page for each wiki out there, while we merely spider the statistics.  I thought of doing what this site has, but opted for the more simple 'one-page-of-just-statistics' thing.  I don't think we 'compete' really-- neither of us are going to make big dollars here.  I would hope that we could cooperate and coexist.  Thanks --Davejenk1ns 10:19, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

DavidCary, I am going to call and talk to Dave Jenkins soon, reminds me that it would be great to talk to you too! Best, MarkDilley

spot of vandalism. over to you
There was some vandalism which I reverted (I didn't look through all the Special:RecentChanges, so there might be some I missed). I'm heading out for a day or so, so hope others will be on lookout for vandalism. --EarthFurst 19:34, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

no logo
Some pages on a wiki currently have "no" logo specified. (Perhaps because that wiki doesn't have a logo yet). However, today all those pages (incorrectly) show a "logo" that says "nadimo wiki". What's the best way to revert to displaying the generic "no logo specified" message when no logo has been specified? (And only the page about the nadimo wiki displays the "nadimo wiki" logo?) --DavidCary 18:06, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi David, looks like the problem got fixed! I didn't see it and I didn't see it get fixed :-) I love wiki!!! MarkDilley

Wikimania
I'm lucky enough to be in Taiwan for Wikimania 2007. If any other WikiIndexers are around, hopefully we can run into each other. I don't have a mobile that works here, but leave a message at my Appropedia user page if you're around. (Note I usually go by the username Chriswaterguy... the Singkong2005 is an old name which I haven't changed here yet). --Chris Watkins/Singkong2005 talk 04:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

"Society Gardens" for wikis focused on the more serious side of life
I like the idea of Wikia's Society Gardens which: However, I think this would work much better on WikiIndex, where we're not restricted to Wikia sites. What should we call it? (Society Gardens would be just copying, and perhaps there's something more suitable.)
 * promotes and celebrates Category:WikiaWikia focused on the more serious side of life
 * values longevity
 * explores opportunities for collaboration

Note the talk page, though - inappropriate wikis have been added, though it's been handled well and no conflict has arisen. It will be good to have clear criteria for inclusion and allow editors to remove obviously inappropriate ones without a lengthy process. --Chris Watkins a.k.a. Chriswaterguy talk 04:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. Thank you for pointing it out. Perhaps the WikiIndex version of it could be called something like "Wiki of the Long Now"? (Alluding to the Long Now Foundation and the wiki:WikiNow ). --DavidCary 23:21, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

ComicBookDB?
Is http://www.comicbookdb.com considered a wiki? (Comic info editable by anyone with an account, but system structure only editable by admins) --EarthFurst 12:28, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Looks like a very nicely set up Content Management System, but not a wiki in my mind. --Tiberius 14:57, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Wiki City Rome
"'Wiki City Rome' to draw a map like no other" by Greg Frost and Patti Richards 2007

It sounds interesting -- put a little yellow dot on a big screen, showing the location of every cell phone in the city in real time. But what is the connection to "wiki"? --DavidCary 21:56, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
 *  looks interesting, but I agree with you David... not seeing the wiki... MarkDilley

Custom Wiki engines
I just found a wiki were they claim to use a custom engine, which has no name and has not been released as such. Should there be a Custom category under Category:Wiki Engine? Felix Pleşoianu | talk 13:16, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
 * That sounds like a good plan John 23:09, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

pin wiki?
There a wiki about pins? (The kind of pins with words and/or images on them. Examples: One Inch Buttons, Campaign buttons and Award pins) --EarthFurst 21:26, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Non wiki pages - used as their wiki
Hi Folks, what do people think about pages like The face of jam - my first instinct is to request they move somewhere else, like AboutUs or a WikiFarm - what are other folks ideas? Best, MarkDilley

DramaWiki URL blocking updates
I decided it might be a good idea to edit a few of the WikiIndex pages with high page counts and change the old size template (without the wikiFactor) to the new size template (with the wikiFactor). I tried to edit DramaWiki but got the following message:


 * Spam protection filter


 * The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.


 * The following text is what triggered our spam filter: I've had to remove this, as it is stopping me post here - it was the base URL of DramaWiki


 * Return to Welcome.

Please would an admin sort this out. The best thing would be to pull this wiki URL out of the spam filter, but if you can't permanantly remove this from the spam filter, at least remove it temporarily and edit the page before you put it back. (And if you really need to put it back, I think you should make the page a protected page and add a message on the talk page, because anyone else who tries to edit it will get dumped onto the Spam protection filter page too.) David Shepheard 15:35, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

C++ Standard Library Wiki
I tried to add the "C++ Standard Library Wiki" to the WikiIndex. I seem to be having troubles getting WikiIndex to accept the plus signs, so it's at C plus plus Standard Library Wiki for now. Is there a good way to put it at C++ Standard Library Wiki ? --DavidCary 09:52, 20 February 2010 (EST)
 * No. It depends on the old software version of this wiki installation. The last stable version is 1.15.1 - the migration is not too easy. John Stanton is the only one who can do the upgrade. (and, before you ask: No, I'm not experienced with MediaWiki upgrades.) Best regards --Wolf | talk 06:41, 21 February 2010 (EST)


 * Special:AllPages includes "C++ Reference", "C++ Reference wiki", and "C++ Standard Library Wiki", but clicking on those three sends to blank pages (blank pages are "C Reference", "C Reference wiki" and "C Standard Library Wiki" respectively) --EarthFurst 21:11, 21 November 2010 (PST)

I like the visual wiki
Category:WikiLogo
 * I like it too :-) seems that we have some work to do, since we decided to hot-link the wiki logos instead of uploading (and categorizing) them. --Wolf | talk 05:53, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Spotted a Bug!
Uh, in the Special:WhosOnline section, I found more than 150 of my name. I'm pretty sure this is not good. Swordman 13:10, 26 August 2011 (PDT)
 * It is still displaying similar behaviour in September 2012 :/ Hoof Hearted • talk2HH 09:25, 9 September 2012 (PDT)

We need a clear policy for Ex-Wikia article entries
There is a small, but significant stream of Wikia hosted wikis which have either left Wikia to set up elsewhere, or those who are going through the process. We don't seem to have a clear policy on what to do with our article entries here on WikiIndex - and our hap-hazard actions potentially breach the terms of our CC-BY-SA license. There are fundamentally two options: Discuss please :) --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 02:10, 4 February 2013 (PST)
 * 1) Change the URL in the original article — many editors are doing this, but this IMVHO is wrong.  Invariably, the original Wikia wiki still remains, yet by changing the URL on our articles to that of a new host, has the effect of banishing the original Wikia wiki into the ether.  This also breaches the CC-BY-SA terms.
 * 2) Create a new article for the new hosted URL — and change the name of the original entry via the page move function to something like The Original Wiki (Wikia), with the new article name being something like The Original Wiki (new) (or even the new host name, such as ShoutWiki, etc).  This method ensures that the full edit history is maintained against the original wiki.  The original wiki can be changed to GoalAbandoned status.


 * In my opinion, the independent wikis are much better than those on wikia, so those on wikia deserve to disappear. Escyos (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2013 (PST)


 * Why not allow for a reference to the old Wikia site somewhere in the article and have both within the same entry in our Wiki? Wouldn't that be a little less confusing? TeraS (talk)
 * I concur. It would allow us not to worry about making as many pages for two wikis that are essentially the same in terms of mission and content (aside from the hosting providers and wiki status) and would provide information relevant to both on the same page. Arcane (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2013 (PST)Arcane


 * I don't understand why a reference would be a breach of CC-BY-SA terms. In any case, my inclination would be to do the simplest thing possible. Best, MarkDilley
 * I've read up on the Creative Commons, and based on my reading, you would be correct. By changing the URL to point to a non Wikia wiki but refers to a wiki with the same content/project aims, we would be showing a prejudice for referring to a non Wikia wiki, but a mere reference to a website on the internet, even by a URL, does not violate CC BY SA as far as I'm aware. I'm more in favor of splitting an article into two sections: the first half referring to the original Wikia wiki, and the second to the non Wikia spinoff, each with their own infoboxes referring to their respective stats and information. In this manner, we would show no prejudice and still provide reasonably accurate information. Also, CC BY SA mostly effects those who want to reproduce the information posted here on another site (they must use the same license as ourselves), the only specific provision that would really apply in this situation regarding editors here is that they cannot post material in violation of CC BY SA, and mere reference to a URL hyperlink and publicly available information regarding the website it refers to does not violate CC BY SA. Arcane (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2013 (PST)Arcane


 * I though this site was all about cataloguing every wiki, they may be spinoffs but they are not the same wiki anymore and thus deserve a page to themselves. Maybe like "Example Wiki" and "Example Wikia" (or even better "Example Crapia", because SO many non-wikia wikis are better than those on wikia) Escyos (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2013 (PST)
 * I agree you have a point about the wikis not being the same anymore (at least in terms of server host, layout, and other technicalities), but as much as you don't like Wikia (believe me, I sympathize with your position), it's wikis are still wikis, regardless of their quality, hence they deserve pages here. However, I would argue that unless the content and mission aims of the non wikia spinoffs are demonstrably different, they should be noted on a single page. Besides, let's say we have a Wikia wiki about World Of Warcraft, and a non Wikia wiki about World Of Warcraft, the latter spun off from the former. They have the same mission statement, the same goals, and the same type of content (though one may be more updated than the other), so it would make sense to discuss both on the same page. Conversely, you have a valid point, especially if the non-Wikia version differs in content and project aims, so your idea of separate pages may be a better idea. Arcane (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2013 (PST)Arcane

OK, this has prompted some interesting discussion, but not really reached a point of concensus :/.


 * License - let me suggest why we are breaching the license. The 'Attribution' part is the crucial point - and basically, that means we have to basically credit any editor with any work they do.  So if an editor say wrote or amended an article here about say a Mickey Mouse Wiki which was hosted on Wikia, and then that Mickey Mouse Wiki forked to another host/farm - and someone then changes the url on our article to the non-Wikia wiki (and which, in time, the two wikis evolve to become different wikis) - those editors who edited our article on the orginal Wikia wiki have effectively been eliminated from any 'attribution' to that said specific wiki.  But we/I may be interpreting the terms of the CC-BY-SA slightly differently ...  We need to address this specific issue of attribution - maybe Mark and/or Ray already have, and maybe they are happy to take this particular risk ....
 * Wikia 'sentiment' - I too hate Wikia with a passion, whenever I visit more than a handful of Wikias to check stats etc, it slows down my laptop to a crawl. But our personal sentiments shouldn't cloud our goals here on WikiIndex - our ethos here is to catalogue ALL wikis - good or bad, dormant or vibrant, defunct or spammed, etc, etc.  If others have put their own effort into creating a Wikia wiki, then we should at least show some decency by crediting their efforts with an accurate entry here on WikiIndex.

A third option - I think both TeraS and Arcane suggest another option, which in reality, is probably the best option - that being keep one article, but make a clear reference to both hosts. So, to move this on, for those wikis which have specifically forked from Wikia - I suggest we keep one article, but have two infoboxes in the said article - one infobox for each host. We can use (or add) the name =  field in each infobox to clearly indicate who hosts them, eg, name = Mickey Mouse Wiki (Wikia) and name = Mickey Mouse Wiki (independent host) - or whatever independent host fits best. This would also allow for any differing licenses between hosts, any differing backup file locations, differing logos, etc. This option would work very well with the Uncyclopedia and Uncyclomedia wikis which are currently forking from Wikia - where Wikia use the CC-BY-SA license, but the new independent wikis use CC-BY-NC-SA. And with this option, we simply need to add something in the prose text that it was formerly a Wikia wiki, and now is independent - though this ought to be done with with a level 2 or 3 headding (something like ==Ex-Wikia==, or ===Move from Wikia===). This way would allow for monitoring of any demise of the original Wikia wiki, and also allow those specific wiki users (Wikia, and post-Wikia) to document their reasons for leaving Wikia, and allow a single point article to compare how those two wikis develop.

So ... does this third option of two infoboxes on one article page for forked Wikia wikis look like the best way forward? If so, and we are in agreement, can we all have a little 'vote' below? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • Admin • talk2HH 02:48, 11 March 2013 (PDT)


 * 3rd option - Yes --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • Admin • talk2HH 02:48, 11 March 2013 (PDT)
 * 3rd option - Yes. Arcane (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (PDT)Arcane

protected page, why
I don't see the need for protecting this page. What am I missing? Best, MarkDilley
 * It was fully protected, and unprotected now. --YiFei | talk 05:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * :-) I am tired. Best, MarkDilley

It was repeatedly spammed over a long period of time, three other sysops had to protect it and then spend a whole day reverting spam here :// Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin / 'Crat • talk2HH 05:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Pedophile
There is a pedophile at work in your wiki, I have already questioned him and it is clear to me that he is promoting perversion. One of the last things he did is change the category of pederasty into child love. Could someone check on his work and reverse the propaganda aimed at normalizing child sexual abuse? His name is User:Leucosticte. P.S. I think it is very disturbing that this wiki would allow a child molesters to set his own rules, that you want to be inclusive and add all wiki's, I do understand, but you shouldn't allow child molesters to decide how a topic is presented. --198.180.167.4 23:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the users who have objections could try to actually edit constructively and dialog rather than removing information and even template parameters such as URLs? If people want to have a discussion about what censorship, if any, should go on here, it seems like there's a more constructive way than how it's been done so far (which has even included removing other users' talk page comments, making comments such as "piss off", etc.)


 * Some of the new users may be used to RationalWiki's norms. That site is dedicated to a leftist bias and has an anything-goes mobocratic culture in which civility is discouraged and rules are applied haphazardly, if at all. I think things work differently here. It's definitely not civil to go around calling other users child molestors because of their views, or even because of their desires; that would be like calling a gay rights activist or gay person a homosexual rapist.


 * The terminological problems have already been pointed out, in that "boylove" and "pederasty" are not synonymous. There is a difference between love and a sexual act. I don't mind if you leave your preferred version of the articles (minus the URL removal and any other obvious vandalism) in place temporarily, if you'll discuss these disagreements, but if you're not going to do that, then I don't think you're showing signs of participating in good faith. Leucosticte (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)