HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 21:18, 8 October 2021

This is the administrative message board. For the basement featured in Homestar Runner toons, see Basement of the Brothers Strong.

Where all the cool guys hang out

Welcome to Da Basement! This is a messageboard for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the Homestar Runner Wiki. Although it is aimed mostly at sysops, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

If you have a question regarding how to become a sysop, please read through the FAQ beforehand.

Weekly Fanstuff and Sketchbook linking

Hi guys, after adding notes to the Annual Checklist based on some edits OptimisticFool had to make, I realized there must be a better way to do this. Since Weekly Fanstuff 2008 and Sketchbook 2008 already exist and now redirect to their current counterparts (which should from now one with the checklist in place), and since we have anchor redirects, I think the best course of action would be that any new Weekly Fanstuff and Sketchbook links be constructed as [[Weekly Fanstuff 2008#anchor name here]] instead of [[Weekly Fanstuff#anchor name here]] (and similarly for the Sketchbook). This would save us the trouble of having to scour for these links at the end of the year, yet they'd still work correctly this year. If we decide to follow this idea, how to we make this note prominent so that editors are aware of them when making such links? --Stux 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally, I do make such links when adding or fixing an anchor, or other similar edits. You make a good point, yes. This should probably be done. Nothing wrong with a little future-proofing. Or redirects, for that matter. That's why we have them. --DorianGray 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've switched the links in that page as discussed above. Following this section I'm guessing we think it's desirable. Comments? --Stux 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's trivial, but I think from WF and SK, the "What Links Here" list is a mess and these are the types of changes that would clean it up. It's a slow day at the wiki, so I think I'm going to get busy on it. (Was going to see the new Indiana Jones movie, but there was a long line, so I gave up and now need something to do.) OptimisticFool 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Our formatting of the pages has been quite inconsistent over the years, so I created a couple of formatting templates and added them to all the pages. — It's dot com 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Two more for the history books

Hey guys, I just ran into these two pages: HRWiki:Block log and HRWiki:Upload log which like HRWiki:Protection log and HRWiki:Deletion log should belong in Category:HRWiki History, but currently do not. They are all protected so I bring these up here. --Stux 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Checklist Sign up Sheet

While the Weeklies Checklist has been kept up beautifully. Other checklists like Strong Bad Email, which has become quite complex, (and Podstar Runner is new) seem to be falling into some level of disregard. The most visible and common tasks have been taken care of, but the more tedious ones (like updating {{StrongBadEmailInfo}}) may not be taken care of right away. To that end I would like to propose a Weekly Checklist Sign up Sheet whose purpose is solely to track whether or not one or more users verified that each item in the checklist (except for Strong Bad Email Statistics) was updated. This doesn't mean that the user has to update the list. The signature only means that all the items have been "checked off". This would ensure that at least one pair of eyes went methodically through the list making sure no stone was left unturned. Currently, we have no way of knowing if a person actually went through the checklist, or was just trying to remember some steps from memory. I know some people may think is might be too much, but given how complex some of these lists can be, it is soon becoming a necessity. I welcome your opinions. --Stux 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have something in the works to help with the Strong Bad Email checklist. — It's dot com 20:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Committee

I have an idea. You probably guessed it from the heading, but I'm starting to feel the need for a committee dedicated to cleaning up the wiki. The various cleanup projects, namely HRWiki:Article Cleanup, which deals with featured articles, have fallen into relative obscurity or the hands of only a few users. The cleanup committee would be similar in concept to the validation committee, but would focus on spelling, grammatical errors, and correct page format. It would also strive to boost the level of clarity and compellingness of our articles. It would also be more organized and hopefully encourage more users to participate in making our fair HRWiki a better and more fun place to be. Does this sound like a good concept at least? -Brightstar Shiner 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is the responsibility of every active user to cleanup the wiki, therefore having such a committee would be like having a userbox saying "this user edits hrwiki"... — Defender1031*Talk 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't shoot me down right away. I know every user is supposed to cleanup the wiki, but the majority don't really pay attention to articles that aren't the newest sbemail or character or what-have-you. What I'm suggesting is a much larger version of Article Cleanup, one that spanned the whole wiki and concentrated on spiffing up what we already have to make it even better. -Brightstar Shiner 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User space edits

Since most userspace edits are nothing more than updating personal info or adding userboxes, is it possible to make a setting that gives users the option to not see them in recent changes? Just a thought. -- Super Martyo boing! 00:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the first thing anyone else would say (I know I would) would be "What'd stop vandals from using that option while vandalising other people's user pages?", let me postulate this: Supposing the option only appeared for the user whose page was being edited? This is at least theoretically possible, I'm sure. --DorianGray 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

BUT WUT IF THEY SAY NASTY THINGS ABOUT YOU AND YOU TOTALLY MISS THEMS? No, but seriously, what would stop those same users from posting inappropriate material on their own userpage? Bluebry 00:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the original request was for the user looking at Recent Changes to not see the edits to User-space.... not for the user making the edits to opt-out of their edits showing up there. That said, one can choose "User" from the dropdown, hit the invert checkbox, and bookmark that page. (Or, even change the "Recent Changes" link to it with a custom user javascript).  Green Helmet 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Update main page

A while back, someone suggested we update the main page to include links to the multi-lingual welcome pages, but the idea, although it did get a lot of noise made about it, ultimately failed. Since we have had the same style of main page for three and half years now, does anyone else think it might be a good idea to redesign the main page just for the sake of having a new main page? -- Super Martyo boing! 01:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, anyone home? -- Super Martyo boing! 04:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have said many times that I think this is a good idea, and have even designed several test pages. Right now, however, I've just got too much on my plate to do anything about it. Feel free to try your hand at it, though. — It's dot com 05:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation

See Math Kickers edit history.

Yeah, we don't really have 3RR here. Besides, it's been three reverts, not the four that would be required for a 3RR vio at Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fatal Error"

Trying to see a previous vandal edit to Coach Z's article, I'm getting this:

**He has occasionally [[Blubb-O's Commercial|attempted to be sent to prison]], since he would be guaranteed "three square meals a day".
**He has occasionally [[Blubb-O's Commercial|attempted to be sent to prison]], since he would be guaranteed "three square meals a day".
**He [[secret recipes|can't afford "money cost]]" ice cream.
**He [[secret recipes|can't afford "money cost]]" ice cream.

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 33554432 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 35 bytes) in /home/hrwiki/public_html/includes/DifferenceEngine.php(1211) : assert code on line 1

I don't exactly get the message, but I think it's trying to ask one of the Administrators to do something ("assert code on line 1"?). I also see the comment "<!--LINE 278-->" in the code source. --71.157.173.166 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a vandalized state of the page that was fixed shortly after. I don't actually know what's in there, but something in the code broke the page good. — Defender1031*Talk 03:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was just some dumb ASCII art. Nothing to worry about. I took out the link. — It's dot com 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Idea for Page

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I had no idea where else to go.
(Maybe this is something that needs to be stated a little clearer?)
I think there ought to be a page about 'Phonebooks' on the HRwiki because of its many mentions:
Eg. in the sbemails 'your funeral' and 'the movies'

I would have made it myself, but I was afraid of messing it up and infuriating fellow users.
Anyone down with the idea? --lustmyeyes <3 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to have at least 3 references to be a running gag, so no. — MichaelXX2 05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion category needing attention

To my fellow sysops: We really need to get on cleaning out the deletion category. Things have been sitting in there for months with no discussion. I've done some, but I really would like a little help. Furthermore, as I'm going out of town in a few hours, I may not be able to do much for a bit. If a bunch of us do it, it'll go a lot faster. Heimstern Läufer 09:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did as best i could with DorianGray's help for actual deletions given my inability to delete. I managed to clear off Category:Pages for Discussion and about a third of Category:Articles for Discussion. The rest of them are either lacking consensus and need more opinions, or else are SBCG4AP-related and outside my ability to really judge or even understand consensus. Hope i helped. — Defender1031*Talk 10:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

General Toons Checklist

I think that we should have a Generic Toons Checklist similar to the one seen in Talk:Strong Bad Email (albeit shorter). The reason I'm saying this is that little steps such as updating HRWiki:Subtitles/Data have been neglected in the past. While there's no guarantee that the checklist itself won't be neglected, at least we can give some structure to the updates and have a place where we can see a list and make sure we haven't missed anything. Its location would be crucial, and I think Talk:Main Page would be the best place to put it in and it's the place with the most visibility. (The checklist can explicitly point to the correct instuctions when updating Strong Bad Email or Weeklies as well.) What do you guys think? --Stux 13:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for the idea, though I don't necessarily think it should be on the main page talk. HRWiki:Standards, perhaps? — It's dot com 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I could have a section there for the checklist (along with links to other checklists from that page, or maybe even group them there so they're at a centralized location? -- I was thinking turning the most prominent ones into their own templates so they could be pasted in both their original and new locations). I would still like to see something in the main talk page linking to HRWiki:Standards so that people know it's there; perhaps by amending the {{Main Page Talk}} header? I'll start on making the checklist and go from there. --Stux 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

HRWiki store

The interwiki link needs changing for HRstore:. It is now homestarrunnerstore.com. Thanks! ^{The Goblin!!} 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! For my own records: http://homestarrunner.stores.yahoo.net/ → http://www.homestarrunnerstore.com/ (We should note that somewhere in an article.) Hmm. The old Yahoo! icon doesn't seem appropriate anymore for the link. What should we use? (Interestingly, on pages where they forget to declare a favicon, it defaults to the Yahoo! one.) — It's dot com 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could be the sign from Bubs' Concession Stand? Nah, it'd be a little redundant because of {{u|cs}}. Maybe mash the H*R and Yahoo! favicons together? —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss before creating a new page

I'm not sure how it would work, or even whether it's a good idea, but I'd like to float the suggestion that—at least until the current lull is over—no new articles be created without discussion first. (This would apply only to our secondary and tertiary articles—the ones we make to chronicle objects and themes—not toons.) It seems that during the lean times we tend to actively look for articles that can be created, ones that we might not otherwise create. Sometimes this is a good thing; more often, however, it is not. — It's dot com 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually rather like the idea, but there's no real easy way to implement this beyond what we're already doing. Still, we really *are* just scraping for new content... and it's beginning to boil down to random wiki searches for three instances of something that isn't otherwise noteworthy. I... actually may get it for this, but I'm beginning to wonder if the "three appearances" guideline shouldn't be changed somewhat. Three appearances of something in a webtoon that's been running at a rather constant pace for more than a decade really doesn't seem particularly significant anymore, especially given the incredible periods of time between them (one in 2001, one in 2002, and a very vague offhand mention in 2009 that may or may not even be related?). Maybe expand it to five? I don't know. But we're just creating pages for anything and everything these days, not really caring whether it's interesting or particularly relevant; there're many people on the "for" side of these pages whose argument is solely that they're within the technical guidelines. Not an especially compelling reason, really... but I'm getting off topic. I'd like to hear about your idea some more. -YK 01:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that often articles aren't known if they'll be worth having until they develop some content, true, there are cases where you can tell just by the name that, say, "times homestar has said the word 'then'" won't make a good article. I therefore propose a 3 step process. First, a page in the HRWiki namespace where ideas for articles can be discussed. If it's agreed upfront to be a good idea, the article can skip the intermediate steps and be made immediately in the main namespace. The second step for an iffy article that needs time to develop, is to be made as a subpage of the new article discussions page, out of the way of the main namespace, until it is either approved or rejected. The third step is, obviously, if it is approved, it's moved into the main namespace, and if it's rejected, it ends up in deleto city. If we implement this, it might even be a good idea to disable page creation in the main namespace for regular users, and have the "you cannot create pages" message include a link to the new article discussion page, at least at first, so that people get the message. — Defender1031*Talk 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think this is a good idea for the purposes of running gags and inside jokes, I don't want to sit around and wait for one of my tablature pages to clear committee. If we implement this somehow, I don't think we should turn off page creation for normal users (unless someone wants to promote me to temporary sysop, but that seems impractical, and also, I would ideally not be the only one working on tabs). -- Super Martyo boing! 08:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. This idea seems to have died from lack of support, and even I wasn't super gung-ho on it to begin with. — It's dot com 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this discussion. I support the discussion of pages, not as a mandatory requirement for all articles, but as an optional thing. I have a whole bunch of pages I'd like to create, but I'm not sure whether they're good enough. I can't really start a discussion, because there's no centralized place to do that. A simple [[HRWiki:Article Discussions]] page or something of the sort would be good. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion categories

We need to clean out Category:Articles for Discussion, Category:Pages for Discussion, and Category:Pages for Speedy Deletion. Some pages have been in those categories for nearly a whole year. Can we please clean them out? RickTommy (edits) 07:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to clean out the former, since consensus needs to be reached, and I'm sure that a sysop will get around to the latter eventually. -- Super Martyo boing! 07:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RickyTommy, we keep telling you not to police the wiki because you're overdoing it. Please stop telling people what they should do. I mean it. Loafing 07:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tell anyone what they should do. I was just pointing out those categories and the lack of attention they're getting. RickTommy (edits) 07:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misunderstood "We need to clean out..." as saying that we need to clean out these categories. Loafing 07:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe I was a bit rude when I said that, but I'm unable to clean out those categories myself, as some of the articles probably have consensus to delete. PS. Should we make a page like Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion page, and give pages a limited time (like a week, just like at Wikipedia) to be discussed? Never mind, with the lack of users using this Wiki at present, such a page wouldn't work that good. Anyway, should we start cleaning out those categories? RickTommy (edits) 06:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And this topic just dies down. I really don't want those articles to stay like that forever. Again, can we please clean the categories out? RickTommy (edits) 07:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the category should be cleaned out. It's been eight years! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 17:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Almost nine years! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost ten years! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Autosummary for replies?

Could we have an automatic summary for replies on talk pages? Who knows how many countless hours everyone has spent typing "reply" and variations thereof. Considering that that's more of a custom than a standard, I guess it might be a little unnecessary, but if it would be easy to do I'll be your best friend. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. In Dot com's case, he usually puts a general summary of what he said in the description. I usually try to do it too. Really I don't think it's necessary to have it and it would be more of a nuisance than a convenience to have it done automagically. — MichaelXX2 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the system could reasonably be expected to distinguish between bona-fide replies and other kinds of edits. Even in the most clear-cut case (text is added at the end of a section on a new line; no text is changed or removed; the text begins with one more colon than the previous line and ends with a four tildes for a signature), I still don't think I'd want the system making assumptions. Given how easy it is to navigate to the summary field, type "reply", and submit the form (without even using the mouse), the "countless hours" argument rings hollow for me. Sorry. — It's dot com 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the system DOES automatically put the name of the section in. If you don't make an edit summary, as I'm purposely leaving one out of this particular edit, it's generally assumed anyway to be a reply. I mean, come on, you probably saw this edit and thought it was a reply, right? Right? — Defender1031*Talk 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Licensing drop-down list

Could a sysop or admin kindly populate MediaWiki:Licenses with the image copyright tags that have been created over the past few years? It would aid in choosing the right license when uploading. Please and thanks, Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 22:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki system messages

I had a few concerns for the sysops regarding some of the MediaWiki system messages. Please delete/modify or just comment on the following:

Please check these out, and leave comments regarding any decisions on any of these. Thanks, LobStoR 18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I replied to your, ahem, concerns. Thanks, Chaps, for not burdening us with more pressing matters, like toons, so we can take care of stuff like this. — It's dot com 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, really helps us... err... refine our wiki :-) LobStoR 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I set the table row color by status -- green=pending, grey=no action. LobStoR 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of id in templates

As work was being done on sightings pages, I noticed that {{sightingslanguagewarning}} makes use of the id attribute for its box. Its value, which references another template that has the same thing, is "inprogress". The id attribute is, in part, the replacement for the name attribute, which creates an anchor: a "link" to a specific part of the page.

Two ids can never be the same on a page, as stated in this sentence from section C.8 of the XHTML 1.0 specification:

The values of these attributes must be unique within the document, valid, and any references to these fragment identifiers (both internal and external) must be updated should the values be changed during conversion.

If a value for id is used more than once, it will invalidate the page, as demonstrated in this link (here's the code). Three errors are from multiple occurrences of the same id value. The remaining five demonstrate that there is a format to be followed, and an invalid format throw an error. In this example, headings that start with a number or special character generate invalid id values (see C.8). This is something MediaWiki does and it's practically out of our control. Note that headings with the same name are handled by MediaWiki to an extent.

Looking through MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.css, the only selection by id that's of concern is #navbox. However, those style rules are also applied to the class navbox, and I believe that most if not all navigation templates get their styles from using the class attribute.

Lastly, if this rant seems familiar, I did go on about the use of this attribute on table rows a year and so ago.

In summary, I wish to recommend that users be cautious as to add id attributes to templates, or anything that may be used more than once on a page, and, likewise, using this attribute to apply styles. In addition, I wish to recommend that users who see an id attribute causing a ruckus resolve it in some manner or remove it. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 21:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dropdown Menu Support

Will the HRWiki be compatible with dropdown menus sometime? Purple Wrench has a great idea for a restyling of the @StrongBadActual page, but a dropdown menu that would allow him to compact all the transcripts would benefit the page greatly. - Catjaz63 03:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To generalize, having any sort of hide/show functionality for a section of text would help. In addition, the page (both as it appears now and if my redesign is used instead) will appear broken unless the issues regarding automatic resizing of gifs are sorted out. I am aware that both of these tasks are not trivial, but they would be necessary for a page that has the potential to grow very quickly and be populated with gifs. -- ■■   PURPLE  WRENCH   ■■ 12:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometime? Yes! Soon? Well... no promises, but I do intend to get back into active development for this site, and creating a better user experience for this day and age is tops on my list. — It's dot com 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you just configured the server to resize twitter sillysoolnds.gif correctly, I thank you for doing so. There are a few more gifs I uploaded in August for @StrongBadActual that don't resize yet (this and this). -- ■■   PURPLE  WRENCH   ■■ 12:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they're both working now too. Thanks! -- ■■   PURPLE  WRENCH   ■■ 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal info of real persons

I did a little digging and couldn't find anything on this subject (if anyone knows where we've talked about it before, please link to it here). Lately there's been an uptick of personal information on articles about real people that seems a little... over the line. I can't say for sure because to my knowledge we've never actually defined a line (other than limiting certain information about minors). So what should the line be? Obviously anything mentioned directly on the official site is fair game, but thus far we haven't limited ourselves to that. We include information from interviews and the like. That said, just because a scrap of data can be found on an obscure website somewhere doesn't automatically mean it should be here. This is a bit unfocused, so I think I'll stop talking and open the floor for others' thoughts and concerns. — It's dot com 17:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There's all sorts of information about practically everyone in the world which really ought to be private information, which most people would probably prefer if it would remain private information, but which, because of the age we live is, is now easily accessible to anyone on the internet. I think that the natural cutoff point here is probably that anything which has been deliberately publicized in relation to The Family Chaps's creative endeavors is fine, but that out of respect to their privacy, information from any other source which is not directly linked to their public lives as writers/producers should be off-limits. Practically, that would mean that we should avoid making use of things like phonebook databases, people search services, background check engines, etc. On the other hand, any information from the toons, DVD commentaries, interviews, press releases, Strong Bad's social network accounts, TBC's other projects, and even databases like IMDB which are specifically geared toward the video entertainment industry ought to be fair game. I think it's only common decency to say that we don't publish any information that TBC themselves haven't already indicated is intended to be in the public eye. — Defender1031*Talk 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please excuse my brevity, but I wholly agree with Defender's definition of "the line". Just because information can be found doesn't mean it should all be published. In addition to that, I believe that a new Policy page be created to specifically explain what the line is and why we've drawn it. --Stux 13:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DeFender and Stux. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 18:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

AFJAOBN

I think that HRWiki:April Fools' Jokes and Other Baleeted Nonsense has run its course. The wiki hasn't done a proper gag in years, and every single "prank" done by users is lame. No offense, but changing your sig and your user page has been done. I get the strong feeling some people come back once a year just so that they can do something that gets posted on that page. I'd really like to lock it, and unless somebody can make an extremely good case for why it needs to stay open, I plan do to so. — It's dot com 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think some people enjoy it and it isn't harming anyone or anything soooo... I feel like that's a pretty good reason? TheThingé 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For about five years running you did exactly what I was talking about. The harm is that it's disruption not to be clever or funny but for its own sake. — It's dot com 02:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Dot com. It was total loads of fun back in the wiki's heyday when we had a lot of active users who would do April Fools' stuff, and then would continue to interact with each other in ways relating to their joke. Now that the wiki is pretty much dead save for a handful of people, that isn't really how it happens anymore. We're basically left with a few edited userpages that no one would even be looking at were it not for the edits being made to them, along with some other disruptive behaviors such as adding nonsense that no one cares about to talk pages that no one has looked at in years. At this point, it's all just become stale. Sadly, there's not enough of a userbase for it not to be stale. We had a good run, but until and unless TBC start updating weekly again and we get a huge influx of users which causes the wiki to return to its former glory, we need to put Apro Foo Day out to pasture. — Defender1031*Talk 11:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm here in support of DC's and DeFender's position. These days some users just simply want to one-up the previous year's or another user's randomness. I'm fine with just keeping this page locked for historical purposes. --Stux 12:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This particular April Fools' Day has had more participants than any of the previous four years - without coinciding with a H*R update, no less. RickTommy (edits) 13:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a wholesale ban on users changing their sigs or whatever they've been doing; I just don't think we should keep a record of it anymore. (If we ever do a wiki-wide prank again, that can still be noted.) — It's dot com 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The April Fools’ Day page has brought so many people joy.
And by “so many”, I mean those few it did not annoy.
And if it’s locked forever, never to be changed again,
Then April’s reemergence of those old users will end.
No more rare appearances of people lost to time,
Like wind caressing crystals in forgotten caves and mines.
The truth is if the page gets its abilities revoked,
That marks the end of The_thing’s twelve year streak of stupid jokes.
And yes I know that certain men would love to see me sad,
I purposely have vexed you for a decade, is that bad?
So, if you must, protect the page and ruin all those dreams
Left gazing into voids of empty memories unseen.

Did you even read my comment above? We have no current plans to stop people from doing the stupid stuff they do on April 1. The only difference is we're not going to record what they do in a centralized place. If that's a dealbreaker—in other words, if someone is doing something only so they can be listed on that page—then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. That's precisely what locking the page aims to curb. — It's dot com 19:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I liked having all of the stuff in one place, so a user could look through all of them at once on any given day of the year. That said, I definitely see both sides of the issue here. If the page is locked... okay, it's still there for posterity. Then I'd just take the list of stuff I did and stick it on a page in my own userspace, and in that case I'd recommend other users do the same. -- ■■   PURPLE  WRENCH   ■■ 23:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're free to list your own stuff, I guess, but we're not going to move a centralized list to the user space. — It's dot com 23:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The Deleteheads Download Blockquote

I made a blockquote-type thing for the page The Deleteheads Download, but I can't add it because I can't edit MediaWiki:Common.css. Can a sysop add this? Feel free to make any changes!

 .DeleteheadsDownload<!--you can change the title to whatever you want--> {
    background: url(/images/c/c8/DeleteheadsDownloadBackground.png) repeat-y;
    padding: .5em 1em 1em;
    width: 600px
 }

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. I went with just .deleteheads and made some small adjustments to the padding and width. — It's dot com 00:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oldest Downloads Menu Mirror

Dear Sysops:
I CoachZiscool1978 request that you create a mirror for the Oldest Downloads Menu. It may take as much time as it needs but, I have overwhelming support... (by overwhelming I mean one Gfdgsgxgzgdrc.) Still! I hope you do it for me, in your eyes, I'm a wiki user, In my family's eyes, I'm a son, or grandson, or even nephew but in my heart I'm a Homestar Runner fan and I'm a historical preserver...
Anxiously awaiting a reply: CoachZiscool1978

I've changed it to a local mirror. -- Tom 01:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Long-term inactivty

Wikipedia (and if I'm not mistaken, every other Wiki in existence) has recently taken to desysopping admins who have not edited in a long time. Any chance we could do the same thing? RickTommy (edits) 10:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

And the reason to do this would be...? --Jay (Gobble) 10:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I slightly agree. After all, what's the point of an administrator who hasn't edited in a decade? By my calculations, about 1/5 admins haven't edited in eight or more years. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a full list of admins' most recent edits:

We have five active admins (those who have edited this year), eight inactive admins (those who have edited since 2014), and thirteen admins with practically no chance of ever editing again (those who haven't edited since 2014). That means exactly half of the admins haven't edited since April Fool 2014. Seven of them haven't even edited this decade. And the decade is practically over! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of inactive sysops, there should probably be a few more sysops to replace the old ones. The last time someone was promoted was in 2007, and that user hasn't edited in over eight years. There are a lot of helpful active users nowadays who could do a lot of good with admin priv-a-le-ges... I guess. The wiki might run more smoothly and effectively when there aren't a select few people doing all the important stuff. Things might get done faster this way. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What things do you think are not getting done? -174.62.238.201 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that things like deleting pages, blocking vandals, discussions (like the ones on this very page), getting approval for important decisions (like this one), and so forth — even smaller, less important things, like changing the CSS for holidays or updating the featured content — might be done more quickly with more people involved. Also, the wiki runs on an outdated and unsupported version of MediaWiki from ten years ago, which is a bit dangerous for our security, and more active sysops might help fix that. In short, I think more help would be helpful. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Of the things you listed, the only thing that really even applies to sysops is blocking vandals, which is generally a matter of luck as to whether there will be an active sysop when vandalism happens. True more sysops meaans more likelihood of there being one on when a vandal hits, but we don't get all that much vandalism and it's usually taken care of relatively quickly. As for the rest, let me explain why they don't apply to sysops:

• Deleting pages - Most of the undeleted pages are due to lack of consensus on deletion discussions rather than lack of sysops to perform the deletions.
• Discussions - Anyone on the wiki can participate in discussions. You don't need to be a sysop to do that. Again, this is more a matter of a lack of general inactivity than it is lack of sysops. Having more sysops is not going to encourage more activity.
• Getting approval for important decisions (like this one) - Only site admins can approve new sysops. Anything else that needs approval is done by consensus, not by sysop authority. There may be actions that only a sysop can take to make something happen once consensus has been reached, but as with deletion, it's a matter of having enough activity to get consensus.
• And so forth - And so forth.
• Changing the CSS for holidays or updating the featured content - I believe that there are elements of both of these that can only be done by a site admin rather than a sysop, and at least the former tends to be done on a pretty reasonable timeframe.
• The wiki runs on an outdated and unsupported version of MediaWiki - This one is definitely something that can only be done by a site admin. I'm certain they are aware of it and have plans to deal with it.

In short, I doubt there's much need for more sysops, and the issues you raise mostly have more to do with general inactivity anyway. One last thing I'd point out is that the wiki's general sysop nomination policy is "don't call us, we'll call you", that suggestions to add more sysops have historically been met with suspicion and resentment from regular users, and that generally only the site admin team decides whether and when more sysops are necessary. — Defender1031*Talk 23:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That makes sense. Nevermind then! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Outdated Chat Clients

Moved from HRWiki talk:FAQ

I know for sure that there's still plenty of buzz going around about Homestar and the gang (Especially with the new sbemail released), but my concern is that not a whole lot of people use IRC anymore, I propose that the Admins make an Official Homestar Runner Wiki Discord Server. This way we can do get together and make editing and sharing thoughts a lot easier (If this already exists, Great! Let's try to make it more known) — DonPianta (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 17 August 2017 (left unsigned)

I agree. IRC Channels are horribly outdated and this would be a great improvement for Wiki discussion. - Catjaz63 22:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that the topic has been brought up again by an anonny, I still think this is a good idea. I've been on the IRC channel a few times, and it is very inactive. Plus, you can only see messages posted when you are online, whereas with Discord, you can view all messages, making discussions more convenient. This way, you don't have to be online 24/7, and if you exit, you can go back and read messages you've missed. Discord is less outdated and more useful in nearly every way. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 18:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is an especially good idea considering how inactive the forum has been. Discord is a good alternative way to discuss toons and updates, and is practically guaranteed to be more active than the forum, considering how many people use Discord. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Guess what else is inactive? The Wiki. And as I've said numerous times, there's no point in making a significant change to a Wiki that has lost most of its userbase. RickTommy (edits) 02:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You use that as your excuse for everything. Yes, the wiki is less active than it used to be. So what? Why should that keep us from making changes to improve it, and maybe even make it more active? And who's to say this wiki won't become more active over the years? We may not have that many users right now, but the users we do have would surely appreciate a more convenient way to communicate. Inactivity shouldn't stop us from making a better wiki. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

How is making a discord channel a “significant change to the wiki” even? -174.62.238.201 15:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Um, what is this... "Discord" you speak of? Is a... food? Shoehorned referencing aside, I know I'm only an anonymous contributor that only shows up for small things. I have to admit I haven't logged on to a forum for ten years (ugly memories) and have no social media accounts (I believe they are places of evil that consume their user's brains). So I'm a a lot behind the times and I prefer it that way. So I guess having a dedicated chatroom doesn't really apply to me that much. Guess I'll probably go back to expressing myself in edit summaries and hope I'm understood. 68.37.43.131 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Right now, we have three users in favor, and one opposed. Anyone else? I see many reasons to do it, and no reasons not to. I think it'll make everything more convenient, and the wiki more active. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In order to revive this proposal, here is a list of advantages Discord has over IRC.

• On IRC, you can only see messages sent during your session, which means if you want to see all messages, you have to be online 24/7. On Discord, you can see every message at any time, so you don't always have to be online. It's less of a commitment.
• It's far more convenient. You can have multiple channels per server, so we can dedicate one to announcements, another for serious discussions, one for welcoming new users and explaining the rules, one for discussing site updates, and so forth.
• No one uses IRC. I don't just mean it's outdated (even though yes, it's definitely outdated, and usage has been declining steadily since 2003), but no one on the wiki is ever online. Discord, on the other hand, is used by many. I usually keep it open in a tab in the background, so if I want to drop in, I'd just have to click the HRWiki server icon. The Fanstuff Wiki 2 server is quite active, and used by a few HRWiki users, and it's not even official.
• In order to research these examples, I tried going on IRC, but it wouldn't let me answer the security question (it just showed a blank white screen), so I couldn't enter. That's a sign that we severely need a new method of chat.
• Wikimedia has its own Discord server. Why shouldn't we do the same?

Just think of the possibilities. With an active chat, discussions can be resolved faster, proposals can be implemented quicker, ongoing discussions can be grouped together in one central area, more users would be encouraged to participate, and the live nature of it makes it easier to communicate. We would usher in a new era of the wiki, free of stagnant proposals like this one. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but still, I can see no reason not to do this. So far, the only reason against it has been "it's not worth it", but setting up a server would take all of one minute. I would go ahead and make a dedicated HRWiki server myself, but then it wouldn't be deemed official. So, do the admins have an opinion on this? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll throw my vote in for Discord. Guybrush20X6 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've also occasionally suggested setting up a Discord server to my fellow sysops, so I'm highly in favour of an official wiki one. For those who do still use IRC, I know bridge bots exist to link the IRC and Discord chat together (I'm in a server that uses one, so I have direct help if we want/need to set one up). I'm also told it would also be remarkably easy to set up a Discord bot that imitates the functions of our RCBot that keeps track of the recent changes. I'll be honest, that's actually what I use the IRC for most often, and largely the reason I'm still active on the wiki. I'd love to move to Discord and even be able to keep track of the wiki on my phone. Let's bring wiki chats into the 21st century~ --DorianGray 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As one of the few Luddite holdouts on IRC, I'd like to see the technology not be fully abandoned in favor of shiny walled gardens with fancy bells and whistles. If an official Discord channel is created I would definitely like to see a bridge bot implemented so those of us "on the fringe" can still stay in touch. I'd hate to see something like Mozilla where they completely abandoned IRC and moved everything to Matrix. Matrix is probably one of the more open options out there, but to me this always means having to install and try out new software just to try and get connected. I'd rather not have to try new software for every project out there. And several of the concerns above aren't necessarily valid (IRC does let you have multiple channels, bouncers help with the 24/7 problem, and the hrwiki IRC client doesn't work because it ran on Java, which was killed faster than Flash was.) Most of the issues with using IRC are technical, which gives most people a hard time and dissuade them from trying out the technology, so I can understand the decline in interest. So, again, I would prefer to have options where everyone can use their favourite technology and still remain in touch. (There was also a comment above I'd like to echo: current IRC usage reflects current wiki usage. Discord usage might face similar trends.) Okay, enough ranting. Have a good night everyone! --Stux 03:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a point of order, even if we did set up a Discord server, all wiki content and policy discussions would still have to take place—or at least be duplicated—on wiki talk pages, so I don't know that anything would necessarily be resolved any faster. — It's dot com 02:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm not saying we should abandon IRC entirely, but it shouldn't be our sole method of real-time, off-wiki communication. The best option is to be able to have, well, options. As for "Discord usage may reflect wiki usage", that is a likely possibility, but not an inevitability. As I've said, I already keep Discord open in a tab on my computer, and I'm sure many others do the same, so making a comment there will probably be easier than doing the same on the wiki. The Homestar Fanstuff Wiki 2 Discord, for instance, is more active than the wiki it's based on, because Discord is just that popular. I am aware that these discussions would have to be duplicated on the wiki, but that's better than stagnant discussions that go nowhere. Sure, a Discord server probably won't change much, but on the other hand, maybe it will, so why not?

Also, I apologize for speaking so harshly against IRC earlier. I wasn't aware that my concerns were invalid, and should have done more research before discussing the features IRC was seemingly lacking. But still, even if these features are present on IRC, they are more streamlined on Discord. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to see an official HRWiki Discord server happen as well :) I'd join it in a heartbeat. It would be a great way to help energize the H*R community and provide another place to get people talking about H*R again. — Kilroy / talk 19:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone up to taking up the glove and setting up a discord channel? I'm all for it. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 09:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Tom created HRWiki:Discord server. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign Notice

In just over a week, it will be the two year anniversary of the suggestion to redesign the Main Page. The discussion hasn't been very active, and hardly anyone is contributing, despite the fact that this could be one of the largest, most important wiki edits in years. I suggest putting a header over the Main Page, recent changes, or even the entire wiki. After all, we did it when we were redesigning the logo. Something like this, perhaps:

The Homestar Runner Wiki is considering redesigning the Main Page. Your votes would be greatly appreciated.

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The main page is still outdated, and not much is being done about it. I think this notice would be a good way to inform users of the update, and get more peoples' opinions. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 05:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

One somewhat related thing I'd like to point out: the new page design includes twitter updates, however tweets have not been regularly updated since around october. I think that activating the new design (in whatever form it may have) requires a concerted effort to regularly update these tweets. (And I, personally, do not have the time to help out with said task.) --Stux 13:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be updated regularly just yet, but when it replaces the main page, I'll make sure it stays updated. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on this? This is a good way to get more users into the discussion and finally get a consensus on possibly the most important wiki decision of recent times. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been over three years since the update was suggested, and I think it's at least as important as changing the logo, which had a notice above the recent changes. There is so much empty space and outdated information on the current main page, and the new one is much more informative and aesthetically pleasing in my opinion, and yet nothing is being done about it. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding this notice is another obvious decision that I would make myself if I had the rights. The Main Page is undergoing a major necessary change, but nothing's changing without involvement. And what better way to get involvement than from a technique we've used before? It seemed to work fine when we did it for the new logo. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I generally try not to "bump" discussions with nothing more to add than "This still hasn't happened", but... yeah, this still hasn't happened. And not only that, but no one has commented on the suggestion. I find the new main page so much better in so many ways, and each day it pains me to know that it is merely rotting away in the HRWiki namespace, for I know not when its beauty may be unleashed unto the world for all wiki-goers to gaze upon in awe and profound admiration for years to come. So, bump. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Count in my vote for a redesign notice. It seems like one of the best ways to get this www dot main page redesign on the road dot com, and that seems like a thing that should happen. Lira (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Most users probably aren't even aware of the redesign, as it only shows up on recent changes occasionally. This would be a way to raise awareness of the project, since we need much more involvement if we want to have consensus. Now that there's a voting page for users to easily give their input, now's a better time than ever. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a main page header, I only noticed it because I crawl around Recent Changes and other talk/project pages. The most-voted-on one only has five votes and there are more active users than that. -- Bleu Ninja 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@StrongBadActual Bot

Twitter Bot General Discussion

I was thinking, since we have a bot that automatically checks homestarrunner.com's XML files and updates the XML Sources page, is it possible to do the same thing for @StrongBadActual? They're usually out of date, and it takes a while to update. After a certain interval of time, the bot could check for new Tweets or replies, and edit the page accordingly. The text, date, ID, and reply username (if applicable) would automatically be added, and fun facts and other information can be added manually. Can it work? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but unless you want to code it yourself and turn it over to the wiki, I wouldn't look for it anytime soon. — It's dot com 23:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It certainly would be nice not having to visit Twitter to see Homestar Runner Twitter-exclusive updates. I don't understand coding, but the general idea is to have a bot scanning the @StrongBadActual Twitter feed for updates, read them, and then update the HRWiki with the relevant data in the correct format. Sounds like a tall order. But given the kind of site Twitter is, I'd wonder if such a The Tweetbot would either be shut down by or lucratively financed by Twitter if discovered. You think some type of B4KDØR H4XXØR has already written some type of Edgarware that can do that sort of thing? 68.37.43.131 04:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, twitter does have APIs for exactly this sort of thing, and I've seen other bots for automatically posting tweets to facebook or discord, so twitter actually wants people to do this sort of thing, and there's no B4KDØR H4XXØR even required. The issue here is that the admins probably don't have the time to actually do it, what with the whole "they don't get paid for any of this and that would be majorly time consuming" thing... — Defender1031*Talk 11:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, and I don't really spend any time on Twitter at all or know how to use a Twitter bot, but the wiki's Twitter archive pages still aren't being updated regularly. I'm just thinking of suggesting that if someone does create a Homestar Runner Wiki twitter updater bot, could we call it the Fat Bluebird, or some variation thereof? (Gave me a chuckle, anyway). -- 68.37.43.131 00:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a clever name, and it fits with other bot names, like The Cheatbot. I like it. And since I know nothing about bots, I'll try to help as much as I can by creating a detailed description to guide the bot-makers.

Guide has been moved here.

Hope it helps! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 05:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gfd, I hope you don't mind me pulling your guide into its own separate subsection. I've also copied the wishlist to create a single reference point for bot development. Cheers! --Stux 08:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Twitter Bot Technical Notes

Things to detect:

• Tweet ID
• Tweet Date and time in UTC
• Number of images
• Tweet text
• If there is a video
• Whether the Tweet is a reply
  • Which username the reply was to
• Whether the Tweet has a link (in a clickable box, not just a URL)
  • The URL of the link
• Whether it is a Retweet
  • Which username Tweeted it originally

Things to do:
{{{Triple brackets}}} represent variables.

{{post
|id={{{POST ID}}}
|date={{{DATE}}}
}}