Wikipedia talk:WikiSloth

Mocking other editor's beliefs
From the WikiFauna I am closest to the WikiSloth, but don't agree with this:

"At times, briefly mocking other editors' beliefs is what amuses them."

What do you think? Does this apply to any of you? If not it can be deleted.

Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, because I have a light-hearted attitude to wiki. I giggle over some things people say, if only in my head.  I'm not evil though and have only had 2 warnings in 2 and a half years on wiki.  But maybe the occasional mocking is just me:)  Merkin's    mum  21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, maybe it was worded wrongly- I wouldn't say mocking other editors is what amuses me as my main preoccupation on wiki at any time, only that I am occassionally amused as part of a debate and have to briefly tease.  Merkin's   mum  16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree to this last wording, Merkin's mum. I actualy caught myself with this kind of attitude recently.  Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Such mocking ties in nicely with the attitude indicated in the essay towards WikiTrolls, who are generally the victims of it. Trolls and people who claim WP:OWN, or who otherwise take their editing on here far too seriously for their own good.Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiSloth template
The WikiSloth template doesn't automatically put users in a WikiSloths category, contrary to other WikiFauna species. Can someone with experience fix that? I am beginner and I could fix that if I research the Wikipedia's guidance pages on categories, but that's too much work for the moment.

Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Too much work for the moment." Spoken like a true WikiSloth! Welcome to the tree. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol true. But see below subheading, we can work if we feel like doing whatever it is.:)  Merkin's    mum  21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want the category too, the code is on the wikisloth page I think, I'll look. The userbox just isn't linked to it at the mo, but I'll fix it I promise.  Merkin's    mum  21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the category was deleted, and I doubt it will be a good move to recreate it. How about using Special:WhatLinksHere, with restriction to User namespace, in lieu of the category? (All WikiSloth user pages) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I was just going to say it had been deleted, I only just found out. I wouldn't want us to be deleted lol, you sound like you know what you're doing so go ahead and set up the 'what links here' bit if you feel like it, sounds like a plan.:)  Merkin's    mum  22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone made a userbox!!!!!
Yay, thanks, I need to find out who it was. respect is due.  Merkin's   mum  21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

essay versus humour
I would say this is humour

rather than an essay

As we're not proposing a policy or guideline. At least I don't think so. If all editors were wikisloths it would be a laugh, but we wouldn't get many long articles made if you're all much like me lol:) What do you all think? WP:WikiDragon has the big purple humour box at the top.  I know all this is not humour as most outsiders would understand it, but still.:)  We could decide on a consensus(joke) on which banner we should have, or we could just keep swapping them for amusement value.:)  Merkin's    mum  21:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, you could switch according to the day of the week ..., yeilding  ... today.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome, could you code it so that on April Fool's Day it becomes policy, then we don't have to think of a new prank every year; that would save a lot of work. --Merzul (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ... ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree to humor. All other WikiFauna pages are also labelled as humorous.  Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree to humor for same reasons as last comment. --Npnunda (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Both As sloths we shouldn't care about such minutiae, so may as well put them both out there and let the reader decide. Or we could change them back and forth at whim. Basil &quot;Basil&quot; Fawlty (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

topicon position
Two questions: Shouldn't the topicon of a wikisloth by default have a vertical position so that it looks like it hangs from the horizontal line under the page name? This looks way cooler. The other topicons look nicer if they stand on the line, but the sloth hangs around, as it should. PizzaMan (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, i noticed that changing the vertical height of the topicon doesn't work in firefox (portable 3.5) or in chrome (iron 2.0.178), only in internet explorer (7.0.5730). Try looking at my page in different browsers yourselves. Is the vertical position function really compatlible to the web standards, if out of the three explorers i tested, only the least compatible one (ie) displays it correctly? PizzaMan (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't answer the platform independence question since I don't have IE7 or FFX Portable. The topicon's vertical position is free to be modified if you wish.  However, it's currently positioned to stay inline with the other topicons people are likely to have. If you want yours to hang, that's why the vertical position is changeable in the template.  When I designed it, I hadn't specifically thought of your scenario, but I did know that I cared about the position being modifiable, because everyone seems to have a preference on where their topicons belong.  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be a "scientific classification" navbox on this page
It's silly enough as it is. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)