Archive of Talk:Muppet Wiki, which was redirected to Current events on July 16th, 2008.

Redirect to Current events?

People sometimes post things here that should really be on Current events... what do you guys think about either setting up a redirect, or just posting something here telling folks to go to Current events? -- Danny@fandom (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what kinds of things should go here, as opposed to Current Events? Because sometimes I'm not sure. -- Ken (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Technically, this page is the same as the talk page for any other article. This is for discussing what's on the main page, the way that an article's talk page is for discussing that article. But nobody ever really talks about what's on the main page. People just post here because they don't know how to ask a question to the whole community. So we could just set up a redirect, and then people will know where to go. -- Danny@fandom (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. -- Ken (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Does anyone have any objection? -- Danny@fandom (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It makes sense to me, as long as the old discussions are archived, since otherwise, you're right, there's generally little reason to post a message here (and even the handful that directly related to main page content might just as well be raised on Current Events). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New Muppet Movie?

I heard from Muppet Central that Jason Segel is writting a new movie, hoping to bring the Muppets back to the glory days (Muppet Show era). Should we create a page about it when the full information comes out? -- Joekido 05:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been all over the news. We'll create a page about it when it's more than just Segel geeking out over it. —Scott (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Whats happened to the pic at the top.Now its just a link to the image on the sites it's on.Is it meant to do that?Sgtcook 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It does that every once in a while. It's either a flaw in the mediawiki software or the database servers, but it usually doesn't last long. —Scott (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
ok, just you notice its gone when you come on and its not there.Sgtcook 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Link bug at the top

Whenever I click the topmost links to my userpage, I get sent to the wiki's main page instead. Could someone please fix this mistake soon? I bet a lot of users are having the same problem... --Ingeborg 04:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell us a little bit more about the problem? When I click on "Toughpigs", I go to my user page. Are you clicking on the logo? -- Danny (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Clicking either "ISNorden" or the icon next to it takes me to the wiki homepage. --Ingeborg 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That's odd. What browser are you using? -- Danny (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, can you post a screenshot of what your screen looks like? —Scott (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A question

Why is this wiki called Muppet Wiki? Wouldn't the name Henson Wiki be more appropriate, seeing that we cover many non-Muppet related things? --Trogga 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The central focus of the wiki is the Muppets, and everything else sort of sprouts out from there. We also extensively cover Sesame Street, much of which doesn't have anything to do with Henson. Plus, 15 months into the project, we're not really interested in aname change. —Scott (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you ask Wikia if they'd create,,,, etc, all redirecting to the main page of the Muppet Wiki? I know for the first six months, I always typed -- Zanimum 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've done that, but I suggest you still keep linking to the main URL and not the new ones in case these redirects are ever lost. Angela@fandom (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That's awesome Angela, thank you! —Scott (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality articles

If you don't want to update the section whenever a new article is tagged {{quality}}, another way to display the most recent articles added to Category:Quality articles is to use dynamic page listing:

category =  Category:Quality articles
count =3

will display as

Angela talk 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea -- I didn't know that we could do dynamic lists like that. Thanks! What do other folks think about it? -- Danny (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Catch

That was quite a shock when I saw that image on the main page, Good catch to whoever changed it back so quick -- Warrick 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Twas me. And since I can't delete pictures, I saved a Kitty over the pictures he uploaded!!! --Nate Radionate 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Just saw it! -- Warrick 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you know you're big time when people start vandalising your main page. We're a success! -- Danny Toughpigs 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you would have loved his picture too Danny. And mine for that matter! One was a studly man, the other an adorable kitten! Gotta love the vandels for giving me a little crack up time! I'm sure he was a little shocked to see his original picture changed on his second vandel attempt --Nate-- Radionate 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Shucks, I done missed the porn. Was it swell? --Peter Pantalones 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Aw, man. Luckily, I have my own studly man and adorable kittens here at home. -- Danny Toughpigs 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No Peter. It was loser porn. We gotta get a real vandel 'round these parts one day. And don't rub in your happy homelife Danny!  ;) --Nate-- Radionate 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right. That porn was hella lame. --Peter Pantalones 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I go eat lunch and miss the second round. How funny! --Nate Radionate 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but she responded to Nate's edit summary. Nate wrote "reverting again, this is fun", and when the vandal came back, she put "I'd better keep doing it then!" in her edit summary.
So that's a clue for us that we shouldn't address the vandals, or comment on their vandalism, because it encourages them. That's why we have a template -- and I just revised the template, to make it even more basic. The vandal psychology is that she'll keep going, as long as she can attract attention. So anything that we do to give the vandal attention just encourages her more.
The only response that a vandal should ever get from us is: Revert the page, with no comment. Block the vandal's account. Leave the vandal template on her user page and talk page. And that's it. -- Danny Toughpigs 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Aye Aye! I learned something today! --Nate Radionate 20:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool! You did great catching her. -- Danny Toughpigs 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
And it just happened again. It's not hard to keep blocking and reverting and deleting, but it is tiresome. If it happens again, perhaps we should consider a temporary protect? Danny, you and Scott are the only ones who edit the main page anyway outside of current events notices, and it wouldn't have to be permanent. Just a thought. --Andrew, Aleal 22:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good idea. I don't like protecting the main page, but this vandal is persistent. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How Many Colors?

I think the first big question is how many colors to use. First is no colors (such as Main Page 1 color off-white). The important elements are boxed with a slightly different background color, which tells us "this element is important". Next is two colors (such as Main Page 2 colors). The big box at the top has one color, and the section headings have a different color. In this case color is associated with function -- one color means "informational box", the other means "section header". And finally we have four colors (such as Main Page 4 colors). Each header has a different color, and each color now means a specific topic (light green means "Today on Muppet Wiki", yellow means "Current Events", etc).

I'd personally argue against four colors. It starts down a path of color-coding that I don't see us having a use for. --Erik Ebrowne 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording of intro text

I thought I should restart discussion of the design over here after reading Eric's note on Current events.

Although the main changes in my inital proposition were with layout, part of the changes I later incorporated into Main Page 2 as a result of discussion were with the text, particularly the part starting "Muppet Wiki is a collaborative project". Part of the problem with "clutter" was that there was a block of text right in the middle of it. "Collaborative project" also doesn't exactly fill me with interest to start with - my eyes were drifting off by the end of the second line.

As a result I condensed the block into two lines, which basically say the two important things: "We're doing this muppet database together" and "You can help, here's how". I think that people are unlikely to forget these two things. More importantly, if they don't stop reading then they are likely to click the FAQ to find out more. I also changed the "anyone can edit" to "you can edit" to make it more personal to the person reading it. Oh, and I used faded borders for the lower boxes rather than very dark, contrasted ones.

What do you think of these ideas? Is there anything essential that is missed out in them? Laurence --GreenReaper(talk) 21:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about clutter, and I agree that a large block of text can be daunting -- but I don't think three sentences are too much to handle. The purpose of that text is to be a little "hello" to new people, to shake their hands, offer them a drink, and invite them to take a look around. I think you need a few sentences to achieve that goal. Your short version seems more like, "Come in, here's your pen and paper. Get started!" If people's eyes drift away from the hello message, that's fine, cause then they'll drift over to the content and start browsing around a little, which is what we want them to do. I'm happy with the text as it is. -- Danny Toughpigs 03:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think a couple of lines is too much for people to handle. I like to not underestimate folks too much. That said, I like the idea of making "Check out our Muppet Wiki FAQ to help you get started!" start on its own line. What do you think?--Pantalones 15:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that creates unnecessary extra space at the top. The "Muppet Wiki FAQ" link is already bolded, I think it stands out well enough. I want that bit of text to be there as a hello, but I also want it to get out of people's way. After you've been to the Main Page more than once or twice, that text essentially becomes wallpaper to you, which is the way it's supposed to be. -- Danny Toughpigs 16:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Split decision

The conversation continues at Current events... -- Danny Toughpigs 02:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote for the colors!

It seems like we're generally in agreement here on the redesign, but we're still trying to figure out the colors. I've posted a vote page: Vote: Main Page Redesign. -- Danny Toughpigs 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be split between 2 colors, 4 colors, no colors, new redesign, no redesign... So maybe we should keep conversation going aswell as the vote. I voted for the four-colors. I am not opposed to having two colors per say, but I dislike the current two-color suggestion. (The yellow and purple combo just rubs me the wrong way - especially that big yellow box at the top). I think we need to change the main page's design from what it currently is to make the page "pop" more and stand out as "the main page!". Currently at a glance it looks just like every other article or page on the wiki, it needs to say "welcome, this is the main page of the wiki, this is special and somewhat important!" I like the proposed design layout and form (either in 2 or 4 colors), but finding the right color combos is harder (especially with everyone's personal preferences). But for now I really like the 4-color combo. It's just brighter and cheerier – and all the proposed colors look nice together. Just my 2-cents. -- BradFraggle 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually like to hold off on any more conversation until we close the vote, later today. It's a lot more split than I thought it would be, and we'll have to figure out how to resolve it. I'm currently playing around with alternatives, and everybody else is welcome to do the same. We still don't have votes from a few of the active contributors, so I'd like to get those votes before we close the polls and start discussing again. Is that cool? -- Danny Toughpigs 19:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

More colors

Current revision: [[Main Page 6]]

I split the box up into two parts, but I don't know if it works. I also made the borders sharper for all of the boxes, and added some spacing for all of the headings. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And again... I didn't like how the box looked split up, so I fussed some more with it, editing down the "Muppet Wiki debuted" line so it would all fit on one line. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that we can't have color in the title boxes without having color in the top box. The eye is immediately drawn to the parts with color. I also think that four different colors is probably too many.--Pantalones 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with both statements. Do you have any ideas about how to handle the colors? Should we have one, or two? -- Danny Toughpigs 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried a single color version with all blue at [[Main Page 6 blue]]. I tried a few variations of two colors -- with one in the top box and another for the headings -- and none of them looked right. Maybe if they're complementary colors? -- Danny Toughpigs 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, when I look at them both side by side, I like the four color version better than the single color version. There's more life to it. -- Danny Toughpigs 21:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
How about having a neutral color for the secondary boxes? Like here: [[Main Page 6 two colors]]?--Pantalones 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not bad. I could get behind that. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, the beige depresses me more than no color at all. Is it possible to just have the neutral color as borders, with something just a tad brighter or different for the middle header? Or maybe it's just because it jars with that shade of blue-green. --Andrew, Aleal 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[[Main Page 6 two colors|This]] version's less beige / more warm.--Pantalones 22:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And [[Main_Page_6_two_colors_2|this]] is a warm/cool version.--Pantalones 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I still like the four color better -- there's more motion or something. I tried switching the orange with the beige on [[Main Page 6]]... -- Danny Toughpigs 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The more warm version is a bit too warm, actually! I like either the warm/cool contrast, or the four color version. --Andrew, Aleal 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the colors on [[Main Page 6|this one]]. -- BradFraggle 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I do too. I like the new green that you put in. It seems like we're starting to come to an agreement about it. Peter, what do you think of the current [[Main Page 6]]? -- Danny Toughpigs 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I still think two colors works better, but if I'm alone on it, four colors is ok, too. We just need to make sure that our eyes are drawn to the top of the page. Right now, I'm looking at the green tab first. How's [[Main Page 6 two colors_2|this]]?--Pantalones 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm going to start putting color samples here, so we can look at them without getting confused switching it all around on the page.

This is Andrew's "Fozzie" orange (FFCC66):

Today on Muppet Wiki

This is Peter's softer orange (FFCC99):

Today on Muppet Wiki

Peter's looks kind of flesh color to me. -- Danny Toughpigs 14:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What about something in between, then? Remember, not every color is represented on the chart (FFCC77):
Today on Muppet Wiki
--Pantalones 15:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, that's pretty nice. -- Danny Toughpigs 15:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I got some greens too. This is the green that's currently on the page (9AFF9A):
Current Events
And another possibility (CCFF99):
Current Events
And a pale green (CCFFCC):
Current Events
-- Danny Toughpigs 15:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Brad messed around a little bit with [[Main Page redesign suggestion 5]], and then I did too, using some of the colors from above. That top box is still perplexing me. I like the three strips of color, but that big box seems like too much, no matter what color we've used so far. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe either leave the Big Box sans color, or use gray or something more muted? That, or try a bold experiment with Yorick purple (9966cc for the record; boy, this is a learning experience!) --Andrew, Aleal 18:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Redesign, part 2

Current version under discussion: '''[[Main Page redesign suggestion 5]]'''

It looks like we're closing in on something that we like, so I'm "bumping" the recent part of the conversation up to the top to make it easier for people to find. -- Danny Toughpigs 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[[Main Page redesign suggestion 3|Take a look]]... -- BradFraggle 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Pretty cool! That don't look half bad. I tweaked it a little bit, nothing big. I'm not totally sold on it yet, but it's growing on me. What do other people think? -- Danny Toughpigs 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I like it! I didn't like any of the redesign suggestions until the latest changes were made to this one. I'm in. --GrantHarding 05:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the green? That's the one thing that I'm still not sure about. I like having color, but I think I might get sick of that shade of green pretty quickly. In fact, I think I'm sick of it already. -- Danny Toughpigs 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[[Main Page redesign suggestion 5|Taste the rainbow!]]. We could always use other colors to balance out the green. I agree it does help color up the page but that green might get old and boring fast. Feel free to play around with colors combos on [[Main Page redesign suggestion 5]]. -- BradFraggle 07:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, nice! I like the options. How did you know the colors? Is there a chart somewhere? -- Danny Toughpigs 14:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Try this page. I just tossed in a bit of Fozzie orange as an experiment, and it works well. Aleal 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Did you save it with the Fozzie orange, or just preview it? -- Danny Toughpigs 14:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I was considering saving it, just to show, but then you were editing at the same time, so I left it. It looked a bit more Gobo orange anyway, and thus too bright. Still, I kinda liked it, but that's me. --Andrew, Aleal 14:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you know which color it was? I'm playing around with them. -- Danny Toughpigs 14:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I like FFCC99. It's still warm, but a softer orange than the one up there right now.--Pantalones 14:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Took me forever to post this, with the other activity on this page. Okay, now it's saved, for study purposes (and can be quickly reverted). Too bright for the main box, but it might be nice to include somewhere down the line. I switched the code (a lot of the shades look alike in the chart, but really make a difference when applied), so it's a bit more muted. Not a serious suggestion for the actual look, but an example of how other colors play together. The color code I used is FFCC66, though Peter's probably right about a softer orange. --Andrew, Aleal 14:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


I happened to be passing and I was a little underwhelmed by the design of the main page. I strongly feel that its current layout doesn't do a wiki of this size and prominence justice. Therefore I made a few changes, incorporating design elements from the Wikipedia main page redesign and Uncyclopedia's version. I tried to avoid changing any meaning, only the styling and (in a few cases, to shorten lines) the words.

I believe that the advantages of the redesigned version are:

  • It highlights the important initial message.
  • The altered wording allows browsers (IE and Firefox) to display the header with each line on one line - no wrapping - on 1024 pixel wide screens when the window is maximised, unlike the existing design
  • It is shorter, both because of the above and due to reduction in header height. This allows people without huge screens to see almost all of the content at once. the front page at once. Currently the categories links are all offscreen on 1024x786.
  • It lets people more easily edit the Today and Category sections by clicking the edit links without worrying about messing up the style
    • This also allows the main page itself to be protected while these sections remain editable
  • It looks nicer!

Undoubtedly, my design could be improved. I think it is something that could be worked from, though. And yes, I could have asked first, but I decided to be bold and make it happen first so that you could see what I had in mind. :-)

If I were able to, I would probably have put a transparent, half-opaque version of the "Kermit poking head out of a hole" image into the background of the Category section as well to replace the existing one, aligned to the bottom right. I am not able to do so, probably because MediaWiki prevents background-image in pages. I believe it requires assigning a class to the table or a div and incorporating that background image as part of that. It is a minor thing, though.

I think that overall the redesign makes for a far better front page, and it (or a similar design) should be adopted. But I'm just a crazy foreigner - what do you think? --GreenReaper(talk) 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved Laurence's version to [[Main Page redesign suggestion]], to make it easier for people to look at it... -- Danny Toughpigs 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
So here's my initial thoughts on it. I like the way it highlights the top part, puts a box around it and sets it in a bit. That's very nice. I like the boxes with "Today on Muppet Wiki" and "Categories", those are very classy looking.
One thing I really don't like is how cramped it looks. I think wikis in general (including Wikipedia and WikiFur) place too much value on putting as much content as possible on the screen. WikiFur's main page is definitely more polished-looking than ours -- two columns, nice colors, a bunch of pictures. In my opinion, it's also kind of a mess. There's so much that's competing to catch your eye, it's hard to know what to focus on.
So we've been working on this wiki to use more white space, to give people's eyes a break and help them to focus on the important bits. We messed with the style sheet a little to put extra space between headings. So that's an aspect of the redesign that doesn't appeal to me at all, and I don't think it's worth it to cram everything together in order to get it to fit on one screen.
The green also doesn't do a lot for me as a background for the text. As an accent for the headings, it looks very nice, but having it everywhere makes too pastel for me.
Anybody else got some thoughts? -- Danny Toughpigs 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
My two cents for what it's worth. I like the splash of color, but I too think it's a bit cramped. --Nate Radionate 05:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've had a go at addressing the above. The background tint is now much lighter - I think it looks better than plain white, but it could probably be dispensed with entirely if it's a problem. I have increased the cell spacing in the table so that the sections are a little less cramped. If it needs more, just increase that value. I've also condensed the intro text into the essential message: "We're making a database about the muppets, and you can help - go here for more information." (two lines worked better in the end, but it could be one). That change helps make it look less cramped because there is less - in terms of word count, anyway. Each line is two lines on 1024x786, and only one line on 1280x1024.
WikiFur and Wikipedia's layouts reflect their users, who always seem to want more information at their fingertips. I agree that the Muppet Wiki should have different priorities to match what is probably a different userbase. Two columns of content would definitely be a mistake here. It is a shame that Wikicities has to put ads on the front page and cramp the style, but the front pages do get the most hits . . . Laurence --GreenReaper(talk) 21:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems with your proposed redesign is that it's built around the dimensions of the picture that we have up on the front page right now. We actually change that picture at the beginning of every month, for some visual variety. I put in the picture from a couple months ago into the [[Main Page redesign suggestion 2]], and it doesn't really work.
I totally agree with you that the page could use some jazzing up, but I think a redesign would work better if we could do it in pieces. Putting everything into one big table makes everything interdependent, and it makes it much harder to change later. I personally can't make heads or tails out of the code you put in, which means that in six months, if we wanted to change something, and you weren't around, we'd have to scrap the whole thing and start over.
One thing I really like about your suggested redesign is the border around the top section -- I think that makes it stand out really well. Is it possible to have that boxed out, without making everything else into a table? -- Danny Toughpigs 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott, do we really have to cut the first line up like that for smaller screens? It looks terrible. I think a screen can handle more than four words in 14 point type. We're not designing for cell phones. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought we were making it look better for small screens. Should we put popular pages in the sidebar? Actually, all those links at the top can go, they're all right on the front page. We don't need em taking up real estate. -- Scott Scarecroe 22:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I couldn't care less about people with small screens. I just took Popular pages out because it doesn't actually work. I thought it did, but the numbers never change.
I think the links at the top are useful, because that's the place a new reader is going to look when they first come to the page. There's nine things in the navigation bar, and anyway, that's off to the side, and it's in small type. I think it's useful for new readers to come to the page and see right away that there's a place for them to start -- They can see what's new, they can read the talk pages, they can check out the FAQ. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depnds what you call "small". Here are the stats from WikiFur:
  • 1024x768 - 49.49%
  • 1280x1024 - 19.57%
  • 800x600 - 8.90%
  • 1152x864 - 5.25%
Creatures Wiki, which is proabably closer to the audience of this wiki, actually has higher levels of 1024 users. 800x600 is perhaps not worth the effort, but I think we should care about how it looks for resolution used by the majority of users.
As for popular pages, I used to think that was a good idea, but then I realised it just made the popular pages even popular. Long pages might work, as it does bring up several of the best pages, but only if you moved the talk archives out into the non-main namespace (perhaps put them as subpages of the user's talk pages instead, like I do on furry - see archive links to right). I put the link to recent changes as the link to "currently editing" in the proposed redesign, which would free up a slot for long pages. Laurence --GreenReaper(talk) 22:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The previous design had that issue as well - only worse, because the original text was wider so it almost always scrolled to two lines. You can size images in MediaWiki . . . as long as you specify that the image be 233px wide (or less), it will work fine. :-)
It is true that having things in a table reduces flexibility somewhat, but as far as I can tell that is essentially how you had it previously - a single column on the left, and a picture on the right. The space to the bottom of the picture doesn't actually seem to be used in any case because none of the categories are long enough to poke into it. I am not sure that just using divs (or neither tables nor divs) will gain much.
I think it should be possible to make a boxed-out version of the original without the table. I will also add comments to the tabled version so you can more understand what it is doing. For a guide to the table syntax, see Meta's table help - it's a lot simpler once you know what the symbols mean! If you have Firefox you can also use the DOM Inspector on the tools menu to have a look at the layout (if you installed it with developer tools). Laurence 22:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I am of the school of thought that "simple is better". But I think some changes to the look of the main page would be beneficial. It is a bit plain (we have some more eye catching and better looking articles). But I too don't like the "overload" many wikis give you on their main pages. I like how our main page is simple and straight forward. I having just a simple (and rotating) picture, the most current events, the today on Muppet Wiki, some major categories and the basic welcome and essential links. I looked at the proposals made [[Main Page redesign suggestion|here]] and [[Main Page redesign suggestion 2|here.]] And I played around with what's been proposed and bit –I know a lot of the discussions are based on personal taste and how you personally like websites to be laid out. I like the concept of using templates for the regularly changed thins like Today on MW (rather than having people going in and editing the main page daily) I also like adding a little color. I don't like the crammed or packed-in style many wikis have. I played around for a few quick minutes and threw together something like [[Main Page redesign suggestion 3|this]].… I think that if we want to change the main page, taking small steps and evolving it would be better than an overnight-360 with a whole new look or feel. I like the spirit of the current main page, it just needs a little more flavor and form. I'm no master of Wiki code and HTML and whatnot, but I came up with something like this: Main Page redesign suggestion 3. --BradFraggle 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I put up a very modest change as [[Main Page redesign suggestion 4]]. I like adding a little color, and I like the headings -- although in mine, it doesn't quite work right, because I don't know how to make the headings stop at the picture.
I actually don't see the point in making those pieces separate templates; I think that just makes it harder to edit. Scott and I are really the only ones who change those things anyway, and it's just as easy to edit the main page as it would be to edit the templates.
I'd still like to have a box at the top, and I think if we were going to put color in the headings, then we ought to have the color echoed at the top too. But I don't know how to do that. -- Danny Toughpigs 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I am still playing around with things on suggestion 3. But I've made some changes, somewhat based on what Danny just said, and some other experiments I am playing with. I think I've learned more cool tricks, wiki code and HTML stuff in the last 30-minutes than I have since joining here. -- BradFraggle 02:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The only advantage I see to the seperate templates is it reduces the ability of random vandals to mess with those sections. Otherwise, I rather like the tweaks to suggestion 3. I still love the Kermit green borders, and in this version, the picture still has free floating space, giving it a nice organic look. --Andrew, Aleal 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've always rather liked the mainpage, but I'm all for just a little jazzing up. I look forward to seeing the changes. Agent0042 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Brad, I like your design best so far; that's pretty nice. Is it possible to move the picture up so it's flush with the top? I think the top box works best when it's moved over to the left a bit, so it doesn't dominate the top so much. Also, it looks like the font size on the box got away from you a little... :) -- Danny Toughpigs 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there really isn't an issue with random vandals trying to change the Main Page. It doesn't seem any more or less likely there than it is on any other page of the wiki. We've had plenty of experience so far reverting vandalism, and "Today on Muppet Wiki" isn't more of a target than anything else. In fact, the only person who's "vandalised" the Main Page recently is, um, Laurence. -- Danny Toughpigs 03:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
So something like this, Danny? -- BradFraggle 03:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's good! I'm glad you started playing with this. In the top box, can you unbold the other lines, so that just the top line is bold? Also, will this design work when we change the picture to something with different dimensions? -- Danny Toughpigs 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a look... -- BradFraggle 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Pretty cool! That don't look half bad. I tweaked it a little bit, nothing big. I'm not totally sold on it yet, but it's growing on me. What do other people think? -- Danny Toughpigs 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I like it! I didn't like any of the redesign suggestions until the latest changes were made to this one. I'm in. --GrantHarding 05:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


I like the idea of this wiki, however, I suggest immediate protection of the main page because it will be the most direct source of vandalism. -- 00:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if somebody's going to vandalise the wiki, we want them to do it on the main page. It's the easiest place to spot it. It's like a kid spray-painting graffiti in the principal's office in the middle of the day. You don't need to take any special precautions to catch the dumbest vandals in town. -- Danny Toughpigs 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


  • How did this wiki start?
  • Are we going to transcribe TV shows, movies, commercials etc., like the Homestar Runner Wiki?

--Trogga 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, it just happened. :) I'm the founder of, and I thought it would be cool to start a Muppet wiki. Scott and Peter helped me set it up, and the three of us are the admins. We started it on December 5th. Does any of this answer your question?
Transcribing stuff is a possibility, sure. If you've got the energy to do it, then go for it! -- Danny Toughpigs 17:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Picture

Small question. The picture on the front page, is this decided upon as what should stay there? Becuase Miss Piggy is not wearing her gloves, and that has a tendency to freak some people out a bit. That's all i wanted to say Mat B Regard 23:41, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a vintage picture -- it was actually the very first Muppet Show poster, back in 1977. I have a particular fondness for it, because I was six years old then, and I got the poster that summer, during the endless gap between the first season and the second season. (They didn't even run re-runs all summer, it was a total Muppet Show blackout! I almost died!) So I got that poster, and I put it up on my bedroom door, and it stayed there all the way up into high school. I love that picture. Yeah, Piggy, Fozzie and Gonzo are all their weird first-season versions, but look how gorgeous Animal is, and check out how Dr. Teeth's arms stretch all the way from Fozzie's shoulder to just behind Animal. You don't see that every day. So if there are people who are so sensitive that they can't bear seeing Piggy without her gloves, then I think they'll be able to deal. -- Toughpigs 23:54, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. It is, I agree, a very cool (and rare) picture and deserves some glory! Mat B Regard 09:12, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.