The Great Outdoor Fight talk:Community Portal

From The Great Outdoor Fight

Links to Greatoutdoorfight.com

Here's a list of a couple blogs that I've seen have linked to Greatoutdoorfight.com:

• http://www.websnark.com/archives/2006/03/also_now_we_kno.html
• http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/the_4th_and_5th_great_comics_of_06/

Also, someone posted this to a penny-arcade.com forum thread along with a pointer to the Alexa.com reach graph, indicating that since GOF started (mid-January), Achewood traffic has vastly increased. That makes the order backlog somewhat unsurprising. -- Plutor 13:51, 24 March 2006 (EST)

Waxy.org linked us [1] this morning. He's pretty widely read, so this could be a good thing in terms of additional contributors. But we'll need to keep an eye out for vandalism and lower-quality crap. (Waxy or not, it's only a matter of time until we get fighter articles like "MY FRIEND JOE LOST THE FIGHT BECAUSE HE'S A GAY FAG", etc.) --Plutor 09:10, 29 March 2006 (EST)

38768260778878915792168

Categorying

So, yeah, I've been using my pedanty ways to good effect with categorising and stuff. I'm not entirely sure why some of the articles aren't registering that the category is actually there, like Brad Sweden with Fighter, or Ben Turner with Champion. It's annoying the hell out of me. --AlanSharkey 19:35, 24 March 2006 (EST)

Nice. The categories on those two articles look good to me. Caching issue? -- Plutor 00:39, 25 March 2006 (EST)

Must have been. Fine now. --AlanSharkey 06:19, 25 March 2006 (EST)

I've been putting a lot of my efforts to standardizing. (For example, adding a standardized "Record" to entries at the bottom, especially for multiple Fight entrants.) This is mind numbingly cool, and a great way to geek out over the magnificence of the Great Outdoor Fight.--Eric Burns 00:48, 25 March 2006 (EST)

A good section would be famous quotes. Merryman and Surrency definitely have some gems. I bet there's more I haven't found yet.--Sev 23:13, 28 March 2006 (EST)

Golden age fight

Am I the only one that desperately wants to see The Champions from 1966-1976 in a no-holds Super Champ fight? Ishihiro Yagi Vs. Rodney Stubbs? Stanley Brown Vs. RUFUS? Lord Brannigan Vs. Pinebox Pyrell? Motor City Massacre Vs. Paul Judas? . . . I'll be in my Bunk. --Gojira 02:24, 25 March 2006 (EST)

Dude, Motor City Massacre and Paul Judas already fought. That's how Paul Judas got his name.

Following continuity

Concerning continuity, what will we do there? Obviously we don't want to delete excellent accounts of champions, but does something put in first account with the history of the fight, or what? --AlanSharkey 05:18, 25 March 2006 (EST)

I say that whatever is written should be worked in unless it's totally incompatible with everything else. Then, it should be put up for review so maybe the author can have a say in any major changes.

I've been following the "yes-and" principle. If someone puts something in before I do something else, I figure I should build on it, incorporate it. It just seems like the way to play nice, you know?--Eric Burns 18:33, 25 March 2006 (EST)

Oh yeah, I agree with that. --AlanSharkey 15:42, 25 March 2006 (EST)

Perspective

One of the biggest problems that I'm coming across is that we know far too much about Ray and Roast Beef. Just quickly looking through, I see that Son of Rodney, Roast Beef, 2006 Fight, and the Jeeps all have different levels of knowledge about Ray, and even more so about Roast Beef. It ranges from "a mysterious figure known as Best Mate" to using Cassandra "Roast Beef" Kazenzakis. Are we writing as Achewood fans, as on-the-ground reporters of current events, or a blend? I think the best bet would be to treat the 2006 Fight like everything else and write like fight historians, but from the near-future instead of current event. That would let us include details that we can reasonably assume will come to light, such as using Roast Beef instead of Best Mate and details of what happened on day 3. - Etaan

Adding images

I've been adding images to pages that should include pics(Tower One most recently). I've only been adding pics from from the comic to keep up the appearences. --Cmatta 17:36, 25 March 2006 (EST)

I am one of a growing body of individuals who are vocalizing their dislike of the pictures of people, pets, and stuffed animals such as they are placed currently in the wiki. The comic pictures are fine; even that one fanpicture of the lost dog is fine. Can we call for a moratorium or at the very least get more input on the subject for the rest? Their overall discontinuity with the rest of the site unnerves me every time i see one. I'm for getting rid of them all. --wil 17:36, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Vandalism and Deletions

1970_Great_Outdoor_Fight should be deleted. There's already a Great Outdoor Fight 1970, which is more detailed. --AlanSharkey 17:50, 25 March 2006 (EST)

I've made it into a redirect. There wasn't any content to merge, luckily. -- Plutor 06:41, 26 March 2006 (EST)

There was a rash of vandalism last night. Many of the new pages are already blanked, and I believe we fixed most of the "edits", but the created pages need deleting. --Phedre

We seem to have been the victims of an odd sort of spammer, who creates new pages with invisible/hidden content - apparently to make external links show up when certain buzzwords are searched on. Despite their disclaimer ("We are delicate, we do not disturb your content"), I've gone ahead and deleted the first batch. I hope this doesn't become a regular occurrence. --StClair 04:51, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

Bad entry deleted, thanks. Things seem to have settled down... finally. But does anyone still care?  :/ I'll continue to patrol for vandals and spammers. --StClair 02:15, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

Some notes from the most recent vandalism incident:

• The graffiti was up for a whole four hours, and only because I didn't bother to check earlier in the evening.
• It cost the vandal 15 minutes of his life. I undid everything in 4.

I suggest that the vandal take up a more productive hobby, like rolling a heavy boulder up a hill. (Not that he'll get the reference.) --StClair 15:33, 15 June 2006 (EDT)

To whatever anonymous person (behind several different IPs) who's taken to inserting cryptic strings of numbers in various articles:

I don't know what you're up to, but I'm pretty sure it's no good, so knock it off. --StClair 01:18, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Today, one or more persons (one of whom claimed to be a female, which we all know is impossible on the Intarweb ;) ) spent four hours of their lives drunkenly pissing on this site, for lack of anything better to do with their holiday weekend. I've just undone everything they did in less than half an hour. I would have stopped it sooner, but I was out this evening, with friends, having a life.

That's right - the only reason the vandals were able to continue as long as they did today is that I HAVE MORE OF A LIFE THAN THEY DO.

It was never my intention to spend the rest of my days patrolling this wiki on Plutor's behalf, but it seems I'm stuck with it. Eventually, the vandals will get tired or grow out of this juvenile phase or flunk out of college, whichever comes first. This wiki will still be here. Their time will matter for nothing.

I'd rather not do this. I have better things to do. To be honest, swatting the vandals is really the only reason I still come here. But that's because I refuse to allow people who take joy in insulting others and tearing down what they've created to have the last word. It's an issue of morals and courtesy and respect. To me, it doesn't matter if the sand castle is any good; kicking it over so you can laugh at the person who built it is wrong. --StClair 03:35, 2 July 2006 (EDT)

Redirects

The relative links redirecting wikified dates to the specific fight of that year have become broken. So, linking to 1931 currently links to an empty date, not to Great Outdoor Fight 1931. Someone should have a look at it, or else redirects should be put in to spare everyone's sanity.--Eric Burns 18:36, 25 March 2006 (EST)

I just wrote a bot (and ran it under the PlutorBot user) to make year redirects. I had it only make them for years that had articles. If I made redirects for all years, then links to yet-undocumented years like 1915 would be blue links, not red, and they would simply fail to redirect. I don't think that's the way the wiki should behave, but that's the way it is. I'll re-run the bot every couple of days or something to maintain those redirects. -- Plutor 15:16, 26 March 2006 (EST)

IRC channel

I've started a Great Outdoor Fight IRC channel on irc.nightstar.net. #GreatOutdoorFight. --Gojira 00:47, 26 March 2006 (EST)

Violating canon

Trying not to be too shameless here, but I'd like an opinion of how to tell when you get too close to possibly violating Achewood canon? for example, I'm not entirely sure of some of the stuff I wrote on the Soubriquet Rouge page. Also, thanks for setting up the wiki. you just filled up much of my Saturday night. --Jamcnair 02:42, 26 March 2006 (EST)

We seem, by 'acclaim,' not to be filling in too much detail on the most significant Achewood canon. The Ray Smuckles entry is almost blank, the Stubbs entry is almost blank (though we've put in bits and pieces of the Stubbs legend elsewhere), and so on and so forth. Obviously, anything Onstad tells us as he finishes the GOF up will take precedence over anything we write here. Otherwise... well, it's essentially fan fiction. We have fun with it. Even if that means we have humans as well as cats and stuffed animals, and women on the Acres when Onstad never showed women. I mean, we're doing this for fun, right?--Eric Burns 05:34, 26 March 2006 (EST)

One of the advantages of working in the 1920s-1930s as I am is that I'm not too worried about violating canon. If it does, it can simply be chalked up to faulty memories of events seventy or eighty years ago. I can get away with things in the Twenty-Three Skidoos and Young Jude that I would feel less comfortable doing if the setting was twenty or thirty years later.

While on the subject of things written before, I'm struggling with what to do about the "High Hat" Daddy Razz article, which contradicts one of the points that I was going for in that none of them ever once fought again after losing to Surrency. As far as they were concerned, simply sitting next to the man was worth more to them than winning the Fight itself. Even Bigger Bill Kayser felt that way and he was in it eight times.

I was hoping to write all of the Skidoos articles by myself frankly. I think I'll add a note to that effect.

--Ubiq 03:55, 26 March 2006 (EST)

Sorry about that. I'd noticed the trend, but since I didn't see anything explicitly stating it in the main article, I wrote it in. Maybe we can discuss what to do with it. Either I can change it so that he never fought again (Though I like the Top hat gang's betrayel, and it would screw up my ideas for the 1935 fight) or we can leave him as the sole exception, and mention that.

Also, I'm still not quite shure how to register.
never mind, I've figured this out now
--Pyrite 10:32, 26 March 2006 (EST)

Let me also state that I don't have any plans for any of the other skiddoes, so if you can live with my High Hat entry, I think we can get along ok.
--Pyrite 10:51, 26 March 2006 (EST)

His finishes are also really low compared where I wanted the Skidoos to have finished in previous years. Orchid Mooch and Jumping Jed Hayburner were supposed to have the worst showings in previous Fights by far of the group. Part of the theme is that all of them had really legitimate shots at being Champion some day if they had continued to participate.
--Ubiq

I suppose, but, again, to be honest, that's really not what I wanted when I created the Skidoos.--Ubiq

Another continuity error

The article about the GOF 1942 says that due to concerns about West Coast Japanese attacks the fight happened at Antony Diller's Wyoming ranch. But the article on Diller states that after being beaten by Surrency in the 1933 fight he moved to Argentina and died in 1935. I can't think of how to reconcile this since I didn't write either of the articles concerned and don't want to change someone else's work that much. -- JoeFF85

The 1942 article specifically states that Diller offered the use of his ranch, though, some seven years after his death. Actually, the Diller article mentions that he was a stockbroker from Boston or somesuch, so I dunno why that was decided. I'll just change it so that the ranch belonged to another Champion from a suitable year without an article yet. -- JoeFF85

Alright, the 1942 article now states that the '42 GOF was fought at Silas Losey's ranch in Wyoming. Losey was the '35 Champion. I'll do a brief article on him right now noting that fact so it wont be overlooked when he is fleshed out. -- JoeFF85

Luckily, Rodney Leonard Stubbs and Son of Rodney were one-time fighters, so the canon is easier to work around. --Sev 17:36, 28 March 2006 (EST)

On a related subject, I'd love to get some kind of official word as to whether the amount of food provided to So-Rod on Day 2 is typical and/or intended to be divided among an army, if the leader elects that option. One turkey breast and one bottle of brandy split 20 or 30 ways is an hors d'ouevre, not a "feast." Divided among a hundred or more, it's practically Communion. --StClair 18:00, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

80s Slump

Should the 80s Slump get its own page? It's referenced quite a bit, but is it deserving? -- Doublemint

I think it's as deserving as the Golden Age, or any of the other time periods.

I'd like to make a general History of the fight that breaks it down into eras. --Sev

Alright, I'm starting to develop some ideas for this. Here's how I would break it down right now, with the incomplete information at hand:

• 1851-1857: Crandall's Farm (Formative Years)
• 1858-1892: Gentlemanly Fracas (When the fight was still more of a gigantic boxing match)
• 1893-1918: Preachers and Scoundrels (Pat Day and Buck Faast-- two sides of a changing world)
• 1919-1928: The new Acres or The Lost Acres (The Lost Generation and how it changed the fight; the fire of 1919 seems a good turning point)
• 1929-1941: The Great Era (Folks like Jude Surrency)
• 1942-1945: G4F (Technically that only refers to 1942, but WW2 surely had a major effect)
• 1946-1956: Return to Greatness (Lots of good fights in these years)
• 1957-1965: Crisis and Reform (Fugues and Scandals followed by the Jeeps)
• 1966-1976: The Golden Age (The Man With the Blood on His Hands)
• 1977-1992: Malaise (Or The Eighties Slump)
• 1993-Present: Renaissance (Culminating, of course, with So-Rod.)

Just a brief question, and one that's not all that weighty, but... Why start the Era of Scandals with Dino King? The only "New Age" fighter to become champ would seem more appropo of the previous era, than the start of the Fight's Crisis. Either the first Fugue related Suicide, or Matta's Bribery seems more fitting as the birth of that era than King. --Gojira

That might work better. As I said, this is all very rough. We don't have much at all for the pre-1890s anyhow. Thanks for the input.

I'll just note that it's Crandall, not Krandall. But the "periods" definitely look good for now. --AlanSharkey 09:05, 29 March 2006 (EST)

What to Cover and what Not to Cover

I started filling in entries in the Jeeps and 2006 pages. I should have checked this page first, I'm sorry. Is the general consensus that documenting what actually was rendered in Achewood is a no-no? If so, I'll go back and remove my contributions, or make it more vague. I know there's so much ground to cover elsewhere, but I just had a strong desire to document the Fight as portrayed. Formica 16:42, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Locked for Spam

This page has been getting repeatedly spammed/vandalized lately, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of new comments (since about this time last year), so I took it upon myself to lock it. If there's anything legitimate you want added to this, drop it on my user Talk page (or Plutor's, I guess) and I'll copy it over as soon as I see it.

Sorry to do this, but I'm tired of rolling back this one page every few days after some spambot loaded with lame jokes visits. (And I know they may just move to another page, but I'll deal with that when it comes.) --StClair 09:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

That's probably a good decision. I wonder how smart the vandalbot is, though. Will it just move on to some other page? (I kept coming here to revert the same spam and kept finding you had beaten me to it. How are you so damn fast? -- Plutor 15:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Just lucky on when I happen to check the page, I guess. Actually, I angst about the ones that are up for most of a day. (Like it matters.) --StClair 22:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Spam solution?

For the past week or so, greatoutdoorfight.com has been locked to only admin access due to a flood of spam. This morning, I upgraded MediaWiki to 1.10.0 (for no real reason but that it's nice to be up to date) and added the ConfirmEdit extension. Attempts to add URLs will get a little math captcha. Hopefully that'll be plenty sufficient to stop the spam. -- Plutor 08:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Since things seemed to have calmed down, I've gone ahead and re-opened this page for editing by registered users. (At least, that's what I hope I just did...)

I'd like to thank everyone who's taken the time to restore vandalized/spammed pages that Plutor or I missed. People helping out and contributing is what makes projects like this work. --StClair 01:56, 15 June 2007 (EDT)