Talk:Main Page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 23:18, 24 October 2010

New... Game soon?

Telltale Games has just released a new teaser trailer for an upcoming game to be announced on 02 Sept:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-debut-untitled-telltale/703720?type=flv

A silhouette of Strong Bad can be clearly seen. Stay tuned for info... wbwolf (t | ed) 06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. That explains a lot. I guess we only have to wait four days for more info, if not the full game. At the end it said 9-2-2010, so... Thursday. We should finally see what's been going on Thurday. For now, the question remains: who are the other three he was posing with? One was definitely Max the rabbit, and another might have been Sam, from the same game. That leaves... The Heavy Weapons Guy from Team Fortress? Who knows? Anyway, let's check back next Thursday and see what all the commotion is up to.--Jellote wuz here 00:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Kotaku, from left to right it's one of the guys from Penny Arcade, Max from Sam & Max, Heavy from Team Fortress 2, and, of course, Strong Bad. Based on the silhouette, there's been rumors that it's just a sequel to Telltale's poker game. -- Super Martyo boing! 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Conflict! Not to turn this into a forumy-style post, but the TellTale forum people have mainly decided that the four are Thycho from Penny Arcade, Max from Sam&Max, Heavy from Team Fortress Two, and Strong Bad from, well, duh. Since two of them are holding cards, it's speculated that it's a TellTale Texas Hold'em sequel. StrongAwesome 00:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe after the game comes out this long period of inactivity will finally end! One can only hope.... 71.29.168.29 21:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

did it die

lets face it, there has been no updates in months. whats going on over there. did they just stop or are they working that hard on poker night at the inventory? please whats going on with our dear website that we worship?

TBC have been working on a few projects (baby, Poker Night at the Inventory, Jim Henson movie), so I would just be patient. They've hinted numerous times that they're not done yet. Also, this kind of thing should be posted in the forum. DENNIS ^T/_C 01:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Henson movie? Whats that? Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 02:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yessir. Here's the link. DENNIS ^T/_C 03:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a "Experience the Fury of..." page?

It's a "phrase running gag" I believe, since it's been in more than one toon. 71.87.114.122 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Our policies say it has to be in at least three toons to merit a page. Honestly, that's one i've looked for too. Right now it is in two: theme park (thrice) and boring (really) (which i think was a direct reference back to theme park). The way I understand it, it would need to be in a third toon before we could create a page on it. The Knights Who Say Ni 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Experience the fury of. --DorianGray 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we used to have a page of it. RickTommy (edits) 08:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

jayisgames mention

The website jayisgames.com has posted Peasants Quest on their front page as one of their "gems from the vault." I wasn't sure if this was frontpage worthy or not. --Shaggy | talk 07:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't go on the main page, but a section in Website Sightings would be a good place. --DorianGray 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

--Gotcha. I also noticed that on the games review page someone links to the walkthrough on hrwiki.--Shaggy | talk 07:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect for <Article Name>s?

Just wondering, how do we do a no-pipe redirect again? for articles that we need to redirect from <ArticleName>s to just <ArticleName>. (Without using Move feature) ColdReactive 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean like this?

#REDIRECT [[''name of the target page'']]

DENNIS ^T/_C 17:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to manually create redirects for this... if the page name is "<something>s", and you make a link to [[<something>]] then the autopipe will handle it, and for vice-versa, if the page name is "<something>" and you want to make a link labelled "<something>s", then you can just use [[<something>]]s. --phlip ^T_C 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind! I misunderstood the question. What he said. DENNIS ^T/_C 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the MediaWiki over at Aeria Games doesn't have autopipe :( So how do we do it then? For exa, when someone searches for Sharptooth Stone Ants, they get a search results page, rather than the page linked here. ColdReactive 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the "browse the knowledge base" thingy...

Should we have a link to The Brothers Chaps somewhere in the "browse the knowledge base" section on the Main Page? (most likely "miscellany") PowerPie

Sure, that's not a bad idea. Maybe for the name of the link, "Real Life People"? doctorwho295 14 October 2010

Special pages

Special pages like Ancient Pages and Popular Pages only show mainspace articles. Is there a way of making them show articles from a different namespace? RickTommy (edits) 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a way to do so in MediaWiki without being an admin, if even at all. DENNIS ^T/_C 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween: Make it or break it?

Anyone else think that if the Brothers Chaps are gonna make a new cartoon this year it has to be for Halloween? — 88.193.42.92 (Talk | contribs) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) (left unsigned)

This kind of discussion would be better suited for the forum. DENNIS ^T/_C 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Though perhaps also better suited for the forum, I would just like to point out that TBC have put out a Halloween toon every single year since the year 2000, they've done Punkin Stencils every year since 2003, and Fan Costumes every year since 2003 (with one exception in 2004). Anyway, here's hoping! OptimisticFool 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speculation 2

I know I proposed this idea in March and it got shot down, but I really feel we need to make a HR Wiki speculation page. The discussion above is happening way too often. We really need to get this thing off our chests. doctorwho295 22 October 2010

I don't really think there needs to be a speculation page, since we have a forum for that purpose. DENNIS ^T/_C 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a page that addresses the hiatus? Huw 11:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point DENNIS, but while most users understand that, it's the anonymous/new users that really need to be addressed. I think it's a rising issue that really needs to be addressed. doctorwho295 23 October 2010

What exactly is the difference between saying "Take it to the forum!" and "Take it to the speculation page!"? StrongAwesome 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Strong Awesome. There is no difference, and that's why there is a forum. We don't need pages like that on a Knowledge base. A Forum is a Forum, and there's nothing wrong with it. --Record307 ^Talk/_Contribs 21:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see all of your points. I understand we have a forum, and that's where people speculate as much as they please. But here's the main problem: people don't know that. We are wasting our time going on each and every time it's mentioned and say, "I think this is for the forum." I understand that many people really don't see the point, but here's my main question: isn't it starting to get on people's nerves? doctorwho295 24 October 2010

StrongAwesome74 and Record307 make a good point though: creating a speculation page would only change where we tell them to go. So, for example, when an anon posts in the Main Page Talk "Hey guys. I bet we're gonna get a punkin stencils this year" or something similar, instead of telling them to take it to the forum, we'd be telling them to take it to the speculation page. New users simply won't know where to go either way. And like Record307 said, it would also bring up the problem of putting non-factual things in a knowledge base dedicated to facts. DENNIS ^T/_C 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

An article on speculation isn't going to happen. Our articles are strictly for factual content. It's not going to solve any problems, anyway, since people are going to keep posting speculation on our talk pages no matter what we do. Making a speculation page isn't going to solve that problem any more than the forum does. Making notes telling people "take it to the forum" is an inevitable part of our existence here. Heimstern Läufer 13:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree we don't need (and shouldn't have) a speculation page. What we need is a page that presents the known facts of the hiatus, which (let's face it) is a pretty huge event in HR history. Facts may be few, but they're in no way absent -- we know when it began, what the brothers said about it, what little has been released during the break, and a little about other projects with which they're involved. Even if it's short, it'll at least be someplace that people interested in the subject can go to see what's known for sure. Then if they want to speculate, they can take it elsewhere. Huw 14:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully see all of your points now. I just thought it might help get this stuff off. Sorry... doctorwho295 24 October 2010

Hiatus page

I just posed the question above, but decided it's probably better as its own section. Does the HR Wiki have an article about the hiatus? If it does, I wasn't able to find it. If it doesn't, I suggest that one should be created. Huw 11:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No it does not. But yes, I'd also like such an article to be created. This hiatus has gone on for a long time now, and has annoyed many fans (myself included), not so much the hiatus, but the fact that they gave no explanation about it. RickTommy (edits) 12:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I may create one then, or at least the stub of one that can be further expanded. Given that there have been occasional (though much shorter) hiatuses in the past, I wonder what an appropriate title for the article would be? Hiatus of 2009-2010? (I trust it won't soon need to be renamed Hiatus of 2009-2011...) Huw 13:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

After careful deliberation, I agree. This is not just a delay. This was the longest break in Homestar Runner history, a fan crisis, and a long period of uncertainty. That, and it was likely a time where they had other things in mind. Yes, this is relevant. Perhaps as a supplementary page for Poker Night, but either way, this page has my support.--Jellote wuz here 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So, what do you think should be on that page? "There's been a long hiatus from November 2009 to the present (with a brief interruption around April Fool's 2010)."? That's not really going to make it for an article, and that's really about all there is to say about this. We don't know why the hiatus occurred (other than the baby), and airing our complaints (which is the main thing that's been written about the hiatus thus far) is not an acceptable use of our articles. Heimstern Läufer 13:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the page will be an airing of complaints. My thought is that the page could be about the brothers' hiatuses in general, including sections both on the earlier nine-month one and on the current ongoing absence. Certainly there's not a lot known for sure, but what little is known can at least be presented there for those who are interested (and seemingly a lot of people are). Further information can then be added as it becomes available. Also, the fact that there's not volumes of material to include certainly shouldn't be a limiting factor -- we already have scores of pages that treat subjects very briefly (e.g., Russ T.).

As to whether it merits having its own article... If I understand correctly, one can usually decide if it's appropriate for a subject to have its own article by first determining if it has both relevance and significance. The hiatus meets both criteria in spades. Is there any reason why it should be considered either an insignificant or an irrelevant event in the world of HR? Personally I'd say it's quite the reverse: at the moment it's arguably the most significant and relevant HR subject, one that bears on the very existence and future of HR and is on the mind of practically every fan. It merits an article. Huw 14:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles are about content, though. The idea of an article about a lack of content doesn't seem terribly convincing to me. Of course, you're free to try, but don't be surprised if it's TBD'd. Heimstern Läufer 14:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a hiatus article in theory, but I agree with Heim that there really isn't much to say. But, who knows, maybe there is. At this point, I think the only way for us to know one way or the other is for someone to make the article and see if it has legs to stand on. — It's dot com 15:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made a rough draft of such a page. If anyone wants to add more, please do so. Obviously, i also think a Hiatus page would be a good idea. StrongAwesome 17:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Good start, SA74! I like that it's entitled simply Hiatus, since that can be both the singular and the plural form of the word (something I didn't know until recently). One thing I'd suggest that I think would strengthen the page would be to have at least two sections: one for the brothers' earlier nine-month hiatus and one for the current one. Then the page is about their breaks in general, and covers more material/content. I'll see what I can contribute. Huw 18:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT:I made a few edits to said draft. I have to say, this article could have merit, but I still have a few problems. The way it is written now doesn't sound very encyclopedic. It sounds more like a high school essay. Also, there's a point where enough is enough. As Elcool said in Talk:Ron Planet, we're a Homestar Runner wiki, not a Brothers Chaps wiki. We should stick to in-universe issues and what they choose to publish about themselves, and not do too much digging into their personal lives. -- Super Martyo boing! 18:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done some rewording and have started to add some additional bits and pieces. I agree that the wiki is about HR, and in that spirit I think that addressing the year-long absence of significant material to HR is entirely pertinent. As it stands now it doesn't really speculate about anything, and just cites the brothers' own freely-made statements, as well as other publicly available information about their projects. Obviously some mention of the brothers has to be made, but I don't think it's at all prying. Huw 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs expansion. PowerPie 23:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The way it's going now, it looks like it'll just turn into a clone of Acknowledged Update Delays but with less information. — Defender1031*Talk 23:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)