HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 14:23, 5 July 2024

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Long-term inactivity

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)

[edit] 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)