Removal of all base lists

[thunderforce]

11 hours ago, Dacy said:

I said it was  your choice.

I don't propose to remove them either, so I'm not sure what choice I'm making here.

 

At this point, as far as I can make out, your entire rationale for wanting changes to go through you is malicious editing, in spite of the fact that there is zero evidence that this ever happened. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited March 21 by thunderforce

[Dacy]

"Zero evidence" ignores the fact that there were differences between some of the directory entries and the wiki entries. "Zero evidence" ignores the plea on the wiki to not change other people's base listings. I suppose the person who decided to put that into the wiki  just did so on a whim? I have said that I don't know for sure that there were malicious entry changes in the wiki; I do know for sure that there were malicious entries, perhaps they were all on the directory, but if that's so, how did information on the wiki get to be incorrect? Because some of the information *was* incorrect. I am not going to dig through all of the history to figure it out, I just look at the end result and know 1.) of the entries of bases that were mine on the wiki, I entered exactly zero of them (altho I made two small changes in '21 to existing listings), and I know other builders did not enter THEIR bases, and the reason I made the changes is because the information that was there was wrong. Malicious? Not likely in that case, but still wrong information.  But since neither I (nor the others) were the ones to enter the information, clearly there was opportunity for anyone to have entered anything. No one checks to be sure the information is CORRECT, just that it's been ENTERED correctly. It could even have been that information was messed with on the document that the listing was taken from, entered into the wiki in good faith, and then corrected on the directory again. But 2) the fact that different lists had different information, and some lists were accurate and some were not, and 3) the fact that anyone could edit the original directory, and the fact that 4) several people I know of had their base's information messed with and 5) people felt the need to post signs asking that people not do that, all should tell a reasonable person that it was a problem. And thus, we are controlling the ability to edit the master list on the document that supplies the wiki with the listings, thus ensuring that the wiki entries are also accurate. We already chased down several different sources of base listings to consolidate it, we'd like to not have to do that again, but in deference to wiki rules(?) or at least tradition, we will add in entries made to the wiki to the document before renewing the listings when they need renewal.

 

But we've been over all of this with you, and you just refuse to accept any of it. You refuse to accept that we've seen what we've seen. But we have, and so we've chosen our response, and I guess you'll just have to live without comprehension, because that's just how it is, and endlessly explaining is clearly going nowhere.

 

[thunderforce]

On 3/21/2024 at 11:42 AM, Dacy said:

"Zero evidence" ignores the fact that there were differences between some of the directory entries and the wiki entries.

That's not evidence of malice. (On the face of it, it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences; people make mistakes, passcodes change, base themes change.)

On 3/21/2024 at 11:42 AM, Dacy said:

"Zero evidence" ignores the plea on the wiki to not change other people's base listings. I suppose the person who decided to put that into the wiki  just did so on a whim?

Well, they certainly didn't do it shortly after reverting any kind of apparently malicious change; that's clear from the history; so I think the most reasonable explanation is that they did it preemptively - and probably not to prevent malicious editing, because why would a malicious editor pay any attention to a polite notice asking them not to do it?

On 3/21/2024 at 11:42 AM, Dacy said:

I have said that I don't know for sure that there were malicious entry changes in the wiki

And I have said (speaking as someone who has now reviewed basically every edit on all five pages) that I have no evidence of any such, so unless you can find some, I suggest we proceed on the basis that it's never happened.

On 3/21/2024 at 11:42 AM, Dacy said:

You refuse to accept that we've seen what we've seen.

That's simply not true. What I have been saying all along is that I have seen no evidence of malicious edits to base lists on the wiki. If you have seen evidence of malicious edits to the wiki, show it to me! The entire editing history is there. (But please remember the last time you did, it turned out a) it wasn't malicious and b) I'd already examined that specific example and shown that it was obviously not malicious in this very thread). If you haven't, then since I've said precisely nothing about what you've seen happen to the directory, I'm obviously not disputing anything you've seen.

 

Furthermore more and more of what you write seems to have no actual relationship to a disagreement over the content of the wiki. We agree that you will review any edits that have been made in the normal way, add them to your directory, and only then overwrite the wiki's table. We (presumably) agree that if someone _does_ make a malicious edit to the wiki, that procedure will overwrite it.

 

As far as I can see the only actual disagreement (in terms of what the page should actually have written on it) is whether the comment in the source should say "Bases are most easily updated ..." or "You may find it easier to ...".

 

Since the first of these statements is not actually known to be true for any given editor (and it seems very likely for at least some editors it is false), and since your apparent rationale for it is a problem that there is no evidence for and that the procedure we do agree on would fix, it seems obvious that we should prefer the second. Please at least try to address this question in any reply.

On 3/21/2024 at 11:42 AM, Dacy said:

I guess you'll just have to live without comprehension

Generally it's best that you discuss the contents of pages, not the character of other editors.

Edited March 24 by thunderforce
add "to base lists"; there has been a tiny amount of spam more generally

[Dacy]

On 3/24/2024 at 3:40 AM, thunderforce said:

That's not evidence of malice. (On the face of it, it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences; people make mistakes, passcodes change, base themes change.)

 You're right. Let's call them "undesirable edits". I did not experience any myself, but have spoken with people whose listings were changed in ways that would prevent someone from being able to visit their base, or had other things done to express disregard. I mean, I can't really speak to the motives of such edits, but as they were not done by the owner and caused some upset, so they seemed malicious. But yes, they could have been mistakes. In some cases, apparently repeated mistakes...  And I have asserted numerous times that I don't know that these edits took place on the wiki. Some may have; I have not gone into the depth of research that apparently you have, as it's really a lot of work to assess what was changed when and where. See, I'm not sure how you're looking this information up and determining that there were no malicious edits; to know whether or not a base was changed incorrectly and by someone other than the owner, you'd have to know what the correct information was, and compare that information to any correct changes that had occurred, and know who entered those changes. I personally find this impossible to do, as the original base directory document has been deleted, probably by the owner. The Wiki has a history, yes, but in order to know whether or not a change originated here or was copied from the original directory, you'd have to be able to compare the information. I mean, I suppose you could rule out the editors you know as very unlikely to have done any such edits, but I'm really baffled as to how you'd know what edits should be there, and which ones created or copied the inaccurate listings we found.

 

So, I'm going by the balance of the listings as we found them, plus complaints from some people about listings that changed on their bases, plus the sign that was placed on both the wiki and the directory to ask people to not change other people's listings. And you're undoubtedly correct in assessing that anyone with malicious intent would ignore such a message; my point was rather that it was evidence that this had been a problem. As we have not brought up specific listings as "proof", sure, you can say you haven't "disputed specific things" we've seen, I suppose, except, from the very beginning, you argued that the wiki base listings were not taken from the original directory, even after Easter Bunny pointed to a history showing that GM Kal had made the original download and tables. You've pretty much argued with *some*thing every step of the way, whether it's how we do things, WHY we do them, evidence of malicious edits, how something is worded, or other details. We asserted there were malicious/undesirable edits done, and while we have not given specific examples, we did give general evidence, but things have moved from a general assertion on our part and disagreement on your part to a demand that we produce specific examples in order to "prove" to you they happened and to justify our method of keeping the directory. I have already detailed the work that that would entail, and I do not believe that, now that the original document has been destroyed, it would even be possible, and I see no reason we need do this. It simply does not matter whether there were malicious entries made, or whether simple human mistakes were made: mistakes were made. Inaccuracies in the directories discouraged people from using them. Regardless of the source of undesirable edits, we're sidestepping that with our system. It's just that simple.

 

You are also right that "it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences"! Well put. And exactly why we want to have the centralized system with controlled access. Of course, we have no control over people who change their codes and do not update them, or remake their bases and don't change the description, but we'll do our best with the information we get.

 

On 3/24/2024 at 3:40 AM, thunderforce said:

As far as I can see the only actual disagreement (in terms of what the page should actually have written on it) is whether the comment in the source should say "Bases are most easily updated ..." or "You may find it easier to ...".

Other than bringing up how you can't understand our rationale for maintaining our system the way we have it set up...repeatedly...you are right, this is the last/latest of the points of disagreement. And I have not responded. Mostly because, I have changed things every time you opened your mouth. And then you come back with one more thing. Even if it's only a very small change in wording, like this last time. It's like you're not happy until everything on the page is exactly how you want it and you have had the last say on it all. Do you go over wording to this extent anywhere else? I doubt it. I have not responded because, afaik, the wiki is still unable to be edited, so it's a moot point, and if I do respond and it's not "fine, we use your wording", I feel you're just going to come back at it again and again until you get what you want. Frankly, I'm tired of feeling like your pov is the only one that matters here. Perhaps your wording IS fine, but is there a requirement here somewhere that I must get all my wiki edits approved through you? Or is the fact that you suggested what you felt was an improvement enough, and now it's up to me as to whether or not I incorporate it the next time I edit that page? If all edits must go through you, that needs to be posted somewhere. But given the fact that you have told me that that is not how the wiki is set up, I don't think that's the case, in which case, since the wiki is free to be edited by anyone who signs up, and I am such an editor, I can make choices that do not have to be run through you, as long as they follow wiki rules.

 

At this point, I'm waiting for the wiki to be accessible for editing again. Michiyo said she'd take a look at the situation then. She's said that perhaps a better place for the listings to be would be the FSBA wiki, but she was unwilling to "push for that". She made no mention of whether or not she disliked the fact that we were maintaining the directory outside of the wiki.  So, I'm waiting to see what she says, if the directory is fine as is, or if we should take it down from this wiki. Either works for me; I assume that if she rules that it's fine sourced as it is, then that's the last I will hear from you on the topic, and if she says we can take it down, I assume that you won't have a problem with getting rid of the directory.

 

On 3/24/2024 at 3:40 AM, thunderforce said:

On 3/21/2024 at 6:42 AM, Dacy said:

I guess you'll just have to live without comprehension

Generally it's best that you discuss the contents of pages, not the character of other editors.

That wasn't a shot at you. You complained you couldn't understand our rationale. If, after my explanation, you still can't understand it, then it's simply a fact that you'll have to live without comprehension in this situation, as I've done my best to explain things. In my world, that's not a shot, that's just a fact. (And I'm sad and a little baffled that you saw it as a shot. ) It's certainly not impugning anyone's character. And the only reason I said it was in response to something you brought up. Here you imply that I was deliberately taking a shot, which makes your statement quite ironic.

[thunderforce]

Having stewed this over, I am (also?) of the opinion that the base lists should simply be removed altogether (and possibly put on the FBSA Wiki). It is fan material, more appropriate for FBSA, and only writing about the actual game is an easy way to comply with the new content policy for the Wiki.

Edited August 18 by thunderforce

[BlackSpectre]

I too have been mulling this over...

 

The main problem as stated is oversight and management of the base data. Honestly, if @Dacy is willing to watch over and validate changes to the base info at the wiki, all problems are handled. An off site spreadsheet or document is not really needed at all, and will end up being yet another thing that needs to be managed.

 

Conversely, the biggest problem with an off site spreadsheet is how difficult it will be for players to add or change their base info. Each step, each click matters.

 

The wiki saves all information for every version of a page as it's edited over time. Restoring the page to a previous version is as easy as a few clicks. So even an off-site copy of the base data to safeguard it really isn't necessary.  Having a copy of the data at the wiki and a copy of the data in an off-site spreadsheet effectively doubles the amount of work needed to maintain the information.  But if an off-site spreadsheet is meant merely as a secure copy, I don't really have any problem with it other than it's extra work on the part of whoever is maintaining it.

 

So overall, I do think the SG base data would be better to just be posted and maintained at the wiki without an off-site spreadsheet. This is not meant as a slight to anyone. It's just what I believe would be easiest for everyone. 

[Matsiyan]

I understand the primary purpose of the wiki and that it makes sense normally for it to be the "system of record". The issue for the Base Building community is that there is a lot of utility in the functionality of the spreadsheet. It is also easier to edit and manipulate. The issue of update validation is handled by having the updates submitted via a form and the master updated by the custodial team. The spreadsheet also has full versioning. 

 

The curated spreadsheet is simply a more convenient format for managing. I agree with Thunder Force that the best resolution might be to simply mention on the wiki that user content exists and can be found elsewhere. Links to the FBSA wiki and/or the curated community sheet or the community Discord server could be cited for searchers, but I understand why references to off-site sources is not good practice where a wiki is the primary source.

[Dacy]

Easter Bunny and I are happy to take down the directory. May we inform people that the link may be found on the forums? Would linking  to the forums be against the rules? I note that you have a lot of "player content" that has a disclaimer on it that contains such links, so I know that they exist. I might expect such a disclaimer noted for any such link. But we are tired of contending over this, and removing it seems best, to us.

 

BlackSpectre, I appreciate your thoughts as to why you think that making the document essentially sourced on the wiki and maintained on the wiki would be easier; however, the document exists and will continue to exist, outside of the wiki. Therefore, to make sure the information does not diverge as it did before, if we maintained the information so that it could be edited on the wiki, that doubles the work we have to do, because now we're not just maintaining the primary source, but we have to monitor and align that information with the wiki, do you see? Now, going  by the number of entries entered on the wiki and not the original directory first, the number of people who go to the wiki to make this sort of entry is small, so in theory that's not a lot of work; but it still involves monitoring, and is definitely not easier than maintaining one source with an automated update. However, since wiki is supposed to be a reference where people can find information, certainly a number of people would expect to find information on bases here, so some reference to where they can find it would seemingly be appropriate.

 

One thing that confuses me, Thunderforce referenced new rules, but I cannot find them listed out, so am unclear as to what is being referenced here.

[thunderforce]

On 8/21/2024 at 8:26 PM, BlackSpectre said:

So overall, I do think the SG base data would be better to just be posted and maintained at the wiki without an off-site spreadsheet. This is not meant as a slight to anyone. It's just what I believe would be easiest for everyone. 

I am of much the same mind... but I think rather than go over that again we should seriously consider removal.

 

I'd propose to make the existing 5 pages redirect to [[Base Lists]] which could have links to FBSA pages (if/when they exist) and Dacy's directory.

[thunderforce]

On 8/22/2024 at 10:28 AM, Dacy said:

One thing that confuses me, Thunderforce referenced new rules, but I cannot find them listed out, so am unclear as to what is being referenced here.

https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/50104-new-content-policy-for-the-wiki/

 

[BlackSpectre]

6 hours ago, thunderforce said:

https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/50104-new-content-policy-for-the-wiki/

 

I think he meant what specifically in the content policy is significant? I looked through it myself and didn't see anything that conflicted, but my eyes are getting old. LOL

[BlackSpectre]

On 8/22/2024 at 2:28 AM, Dacy said:

Easter Bunny and I are happy to take down the directory. May we inform people that the link may be found on the forums? Would linking  to the forums be against the rules? I note that you have a lot of "player content" that has a disclaimer on it that contains such links, so I know that they exist. I might expect such a disclaimer noted for any such link. But we are tired of contending over this, and removing it seems best, to us.

I think adding a link to the directory a the bottom of a wiki page in the "See Also" section is perfectly fine. It would merely be a helpful link to a good off-wiki resource.

 

On 8/22/2024 at 2:28 AM, Dacy said:

 

BlackSpectre, I appreciate your thoughts as to why you think that making the document essentially sourced on the wiki and maintained on the wiki would be easier; however, the document exists and will continue to exist, outside of the wiki.

 

Ah, OK. That totally makes sense. So really the main question you've been asking wiki peeps is whether or not it would be a good idea to have the wiki reflect what is on the spreadsheet.

 

So my answer to that is whatever would be easiest to maintain. Frankly, the easiest thing would just be to add a link and be done with it. Other players can edit the wiki and add the information from your directory if desired, or you could tackle that project. Either way, once the information is at the wiki, you aren't required to monitor it. The rest of us can do that, especially now that we know that it's an issue.

 

On 8/22/2024 at 2:28 AM, Dacy said:

if we maintained the information so that it could be edited on the wiki, that doubles the work we have to do, because now we're not just maintaining the primary source, but we have to monitor and align that information with the wiki, do you see?

 

Exactly what I meant. When I think about maintaining 2 different sources that both change, it seems like too much work. And you're right, the amount of people that edit the base pages is small. So if you WANTED to maintain both spreadsheet and wiki, I'd have no objections but it would mean your attention would have to be split, and I know that can be a pain. I'm just trying to be helpful and positive, @Dacy. 🙂

 

Not that I think this would ever happen with you and @Easter Bunny, but what if the unthinkable happens and you both become unable or unwilling to continue to maintain your base directory? If the information is also at the wiki (or any wiki), at least players could still update it themselves and all the information wouldn't be lost. The converse is true as well, what if this wiki goes away? So having the same or similar information at 2 different places is not a bad idea.

 

Personally, I think information about community bases that are useful to the general player population (such as the many teleport bases), is the most important base location information to host at this wiki. Information about personal bases that are accessible to other players to look at is nice as well, but not as important because it isn't immediately useful to as many players. Once in a while I do like going around to other people's bases to see what others have done, so it's not useless information in the least. And if you're a player who is interested in base building, then the open house bases are extremely useful as examples of what can be done! So I do think the base location information has a place at this wiki. I know @thunderforce is advocating removing the base information from the wiki, but I don't think that's necessary or desirable. I can live with it, though, as long as the information is available to players elsewhere and is easily accessible. 

 

So what do I recommend? Well, at MINIMUM, add a link to your directory at the bottom of the wiki page. If we do that, I think we're covered.

 

If you want to rewrite or edit any of the base pages I think that's perfectly fine. I might say I even want you to do that! I couldn't ask for better people than you and @Easter Bunny to update the wiki's SG base pages. I trust your judgement @Dacy, especially when it comes to SG bases. You two are like THE SG base experts! I also think there's no reason for you to maintain the wiki info and provide oversight if you don't want to afterwards.  

 

As for automatic updates of the wiki pages from your directory, I really don't think that's necessary and it also makes things more complicated. Maybe just periodic updates done manually? That way we'd have a human looking at everything. Heck, I can even do that! It's a relatively simple task to convert a spreadsheet into a wiki table with the online tools that are available.

 

I hope what I've said here is helpful to everyone. Warmest wishes from me to everyone involved. I appreciate your dedication, intelligence, and support. Glad to be in the same company with people the likes of y'all. 🙂

 

 

 

[BlackSpectre]

I just went ahead and added a link to the Community Base Directory spreadsheet at the bottom of the Supergroup Base page  https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Supergroup_Base. So now we're covered. If that's all you want to do @Dacy, I completely understand. 

 

I'm actually tempted to add another link to the Base Builders Cheat Sheet post at the Homecoming forum 

 

It's been THE most important base editing information that I've encountered. Although... a-hem! ... I haven't read any base building guides. Maybe that would be a good idea! LOL

 

 

[Dacy]

I appreciate you, BlackSpectre. 🙂

 

What we tried to do was maintain the wikipages offsite. We have (still) several people who edit and update the pages and make sure they are accurate, it is not just EB and I. It's meant to survive any of us moving on. Our great docs expert, Matsiyan, had automated the update to the wiki so that it would overwrite the old wiki info with the updated directory download. However, the problem was that there was objection to the idea of an informational source being maintained outside of the wiki that the wiki editors could not affect, and there was objection to the plan of having the directory be the source, even to the point of asking people to add their bases to it, rather than to the wiki. So, I agreed to monitor for changes and accept wiki entries as entries to the directory, inputting them there so the two would align.  But this was still unsatisfactory, it seemed, to some, and several haggles over minor wording preferences, and then the wiki...do I say, crashed? became uneditable for quite some time.

 

Essentially, I felt there was one person who seemed to have a problem with the directory as sourced, and the issue and then tangential issues were raised again and again until I was thoroughly tired of the whole thing and just wished to be DONE. I appealed to Michiyo, as her name had been mentioned as the one person whose opinion would be respected and honored. This is from a few posts ago:

On 3/29/2024 at 2:02 AM, Dacy said:

Michiyo said she'd take a look at the situation then. She's said that perhaps a better place for the listings to be would be the FSBA wiki, but she was unwilling to "push for that". She made no mention of whether or not she disliked the fact that we were maintaining the directory outside of the wiki.  So, I'm waiting to see what she says, if the directory is fine as is, or if we should take it down from this wiki. Either works for me; I assume that if she rules that it's fine sourced as it is, then that's the last I will hear from you on the topic, and if she says we can take it down, I assume that you won't have a problem with getting rid of the directory.

So, Michiyo said that maybe FSBA would be a better place. Thunderforce has decided he agrees (*shock*) and so perhaps the directory should be removed. I said I would wait for Michiyo's ruling, which she clearly has not given (I thought the new rules might say something, but like you, I do not see anything there that pertains), but am so disheartened and tired of dealing with it that I'm happy to remove the directory. It will continue to be kept and updated by us and those that volunteer to do so; it's just that the wiki will not have access to that information. We are not going to put it on FSBA. Trying to do this was enough, we don't want to risk going through such again.

 

Like you, I find the base information to be useful. Lots of people here RP; there is an entire server known as "the RP server"; this is why Everlasting has the most and the best bases. They tie directly to the RP game, a large section of this game's population. There are people who do nothing in this game OTHER than bases. There are people who never fight mobs, but only RP and use the bases created for RP. And it's helpful for RPers to see what is out there. It's helpful for builders to know where to find examples of certain types of bases. And many like you find base hopping to be enjoyable. So I, too, think a directory would be a worthwhile inclusion, else I would not have tried to include it, but now, I'm just ready to let it go.

 

12 hours ago, BlackSpectre said:

f you want to rewrite or edit any of the base pages I think that's perfectly fine. I might say I even want you to do that! I couldn't ask for better people than you and @Easter Bunny to update the wiki's SG base pages. I trust your judgement @Dacy, especially when it comes to SG bases. You two are like THE SG base experts! I also think there's no reason for you to maintain the wiki info and provide oversight if you don't want to afterwards.  

 

As for automatic updates of the wiki pages from your directory, I really don't think that's necessary and it also makes things more complicated. Maybe just periodic updates done manually? That way we'd have a human looking at everything. Heck, I can even do that! It's a relatively simple task to convert a spreadsheet into a wiki table with the online tools that are available.

 I have, in the past, updated some of the pages, which are woefully out of date. However, life at the moment is tumultuous and overly full, and I am barely managing a minor amount of base building and the current showcases; and soon, it will be Halloween, which is a huge time commitment every year. Perhaps, if I can get past the negative associations I have at present with editing in the wiki, and I have more time, I will update the pages in the future.

 

That last thing you said, about the online tools, that is what I meant about automated.  It's not that a computer goes, Oh, it's time! And makes the update; we have to do that, and all of the information has been checked beforehand, and all changes are looked at to make sure they were the correct changes. I just meant we don't have to go in and do it line by line and base by base. 🙂 Press a button, look at the changes, if it's right, you're done. That's pretty automated, to me!

11 hours ago, BlackSpectre said:

I'm actually tempted to add another link to the Base Builders Cheat Sheet post at the Homecoming forum

You could add a link to the topic where Easter Bunny consolidated all of the helpful guides for bases, including my video tutorial channel, for those who prefer to see it done, rather than reading the instructions (depending on the type of learner one is). You see, there are guides to things like what light sources actually give light, a link to a source giving more music sources than the wiki lists, and so forth. Even our Discord is listed, as it has become a resource all on its own. This one link includes the directory as well, although that has an additional topic all to itself, because people won't read. Here is the link:

 

[thunderforce]

On 8/24/2024 at 7:19 PM, BlackSpectre said:

I think he meant what specifically in the content policy is significant? I looked through it myself and didn't see anything that conflicted, but my eyes are getting old. LOL

I could be mistaken but I think Dacy is not a "he".

 

What I meant was it is very difficult to have a large list of player bases on the wiki and at the same time ensure that none of them is inappropriate.

[thunderforce]

17 hours ago, Dacy said:

We are not going to put it on FSBA. Trying to do this was enough, we don't want to risk going through such again.

I don't want to relitigate the whole thing either; I promise you I have nothing at all to do with the FBSA Wiki.

[Dacy]

5 hours ago, thunderforce said:

What I meant was it is very difficult to have a large list of player bases on the wiki and at the same time ensure that none of them is inappropriate.

This is true, but just as sg and team and coalition channels are somewhat private, and rules are relaxed unless a complaint is made, so should bases be in the same category. In other words, you'd have to go into a base to be offended if it was inappropriate; once notified, we can take a base off of a list, just as inappropriate names are genericked once reported and confirmed, and people using channels inappropriately are sanctioned if reported and the investigation bears out the complaint. I do not see that all the information related to individual bases should be absent because a very small percentage might be inappropriate, if that is your reasoning; that's punishing the vast majority of COC abiding builders for the possibility a very small few are not in compliance. I still do not want to mess with the base list here, mind; but I disagree that that needs to be or should be a consideration. If a name is inappropriate, or the base is listed as catering to adults, we had already agreed not to list it.