HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
"Da Basement" redirects here. For the the basement featured in Homestar Runner toons, see Strong Bad's Basement.
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.

Current | Archive 1 (1-10) | Archive 2 (11-20)
Archive 3 (21-30) | Archive 4 (31-40) | Archive 5 (41-50)
Archive 6 (51-60) | Archive 7 (Logo discussion) | Archive 8 (61-82)
Archive 9 (83-102)
Start a new thread »

Contents

Episode V. The DoS strikes back?

Am I the only one encountering serious slowdowns? Are we being attacked by a DoS again? --Stux 01:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooooops! I just saw the discussion in the main page, nevermind.--Stux 01:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Vandal Attack

Just to let you know, the recent vandel attack was done by zombies, which are computers infected with a trojan. A proxy block list won't block these bots. Anyways, I'm begun to pick apart mediawiki and see if I can make a bot-prevention script for you guys/the other wikis out there. Think of something a bot can't read. [Big ol' Hint: a image] [PS, move this if this is in the wrong place] - Mick

These IPs in general show too many similarities to be random machines, in my opinion. Also, I believe some one person is driving these attacks, because they start and stop, and because whoever it is adapts to our countermeasures in specific ways. — It's dot com 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
If we're going to do anything with an image, here's an idea I had: Set it up somehow so that it would be impossible to enter the domain hrwiki.org without entering whatever characters are in the image. Something like we had on the old wiki where when you clicked on a link to the admin page, a dialog box came up asking for your login info. I guess we would have to set it up so that if you followed a link here, even from another wiki that interwiki links to us se up like Wikipedia or This Might Be a Wiki, you'd see that dialog box. I know it would really annoy some people, but my guess is that if we were to not do it that way, vandals would just go to those wikis and click links to us and get in that way. If we're not going to use a scrambled image, that's completely fine by me—we'll do what we have to do—ignore what I just said. It might not be feasible, practical, or even possible. As I've said before, I don't know much about the technical aspects of the Internet, just how to use it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 20:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
ACupOfCoffee: Feel free to write your own MediaWiki extension to do your above suggestion. -- Tom 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the extent of my programming abilities is programming formulas into TI calculators, which takes me a long time to do. I don't know if I'm the guy to do it,but I'll see if there's already one like it posted to Meta. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I even understand what you're proposing. — It's dot com 22:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
What I'm proposing is that when somebody enters the hrwiki.org domain, no matter how they got here, (i.e.: typed it into the address bar, clicked a link on another site) they get dialog box with a Wikipedia:Captcha for them to identify. But not just for viewing the main page, because that could be circumvented by thping in the url of another page on the wiki, and would create a problem for people already on the site returning to the main page. It's sort of like those sites where you can't even view their home page unless you log in, and when you try to go to them you get a log in dialog box on top of the page you were on before. I believe this extension makes you identify a Captcha every time you try to edit a page. The only big problem with it is that it's for MediaWiki 1.3, and the guy who wrote it can't vigure out how to get it to work on 1.5. He has a preliminary non-working version up with a requset for help on making it work. When and if he gets it to work, we could tweak it for our own purposes. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh that's what I was looking for... if he has Code, I might be able ... to help? (Agh but i've been so busy!). --Stux 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I've already developed a Captcha system that is ready to be implemented. I'm just waiting for our host to install a few PHP libraries. -- Tom 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Wait, are we going to have to see the Captcha every time we try to edit, or when we log in? Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 00:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the plan is for when we log in/create a user or when an anonny makes an edit. — It's dot com 00:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Ohhh! cool! Well I guess my services are not needed in this respect. So you managed to get Captcha to work on 1.5? --Stux 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
While it'll be good to open back up to the public again, I can't help but feel like we're still loosing something to that troll; that anonymous users might be somewhat discouraged from editing, if it means copying out an image too. At the very least, it'll be a hassle. Although it may turn out to be a good thing, encouraging annonymous users to create accounts, to limit the copying needed. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
By copying you mean typing the image contents? If they're going to do editing (which involves typing) we're only adding a little bit to their typing. Granted, they have to do some processing of that image in their heads but it's still minimal. --Stux 13:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I bet there are a zillian people that don't like regestering. So you could just put the image varifacation thing and when they put it in right, it puts in a cookie. And if you don't have the cookie in your browser, it redirects them to the page w/ the image varifacation page. It's possible to do that w/ javascript. I'll go look it up ::strongfan::

That would be a good idea. Just remember that adding that will still require a decent amount of coding on media-wiki since cookies are easy to forge without proper authentication methods. It's possible that the good people here at the wiki have already thought of that and might be planning for it in the long term. --Stux 15:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be a bad idea, as it would defeat the whole purpose of the security. — It's dot com 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. And they already put up the image varifacation thing. Sigh . I didn't get the code in time. Oh well. Problem is solved anyway.  ::strongfan::

Image uploading

I can't fix this, or I'd do it myself, but the image upload screen no longer has the check box to confirm that no copyrights are being violated. This isn;t a change in MediaWiki 1.5 because TMBW still has it. There is one to watch the page, but leaving that unchecked doesn't provide a warning about breaking copyright law, so I know that it is not merely mislabeled. Come to think of it, we ought to have a dropdown box to select the appropriate copyright tag to go on the image page at uploading like the 'Pedia does. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Say, that's not a bad idea. I'll look into this a little later, unless someone beats me to it. — It's dot com 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... It's been over a week and I still haven't done anything on this. I'd better write myself a note. — It's dot com 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

New Community Project

It's been awhile since Peasant's Quest, and I'm thinking we could go up for another one. I've been wanting to make a nice standard for Tandy 400, Compy 386, and Lappy 486 for a while. Also, the Store is a mess. Should we start another one up? Any ideas? —FireBird|Talk 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is another, more importent project the community need to do. Personal images and signature images tags. Each user need to tag his images and take after abandoned images of users past and images of users departed. Other images, not from the user variety also need to be tagged as web-screenshots and game=screenshots. Could this be done in a week? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Extensively using Mozilla's (and when I'm in a computer lab, Firefox's) tabs, (and having, like, 50 open at once) I've managed to do 500 of them in 2 or 3 45 minute sittings. A week doesn't seem unreasonable to me, granted I can only work that fast when I'm at school on the LAN, but I'm sure enough of us have broadband to do it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ @ 21:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
A week is fine, but we should divide it up somehow like we did for HRWiki:ProxyBlocks. We need groupings of all the tags in the categories E.L. Cool mentioned:
{{web-screenshot}}
Copyright undetermined This is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page. It is believed that screenshots may be exhibited under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. See Copyrights for more information.
{{game-screenshot}}
Copyright undetermined This is a screenshot of a copyrighted computer game or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale.
{{dvd-screenshot}}
Copyright undetermined This is a screenshot of a copyrighted DVD video, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the producers of the disc and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the DVD video in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale.
{{web-soundclip}}
Copyright undetermined This is a sample from a copyrighted musical recording. The person who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent people who use it in articles, assert that this qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law when used on the Homestar Runner Wiki, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit organization Fellowsites, where:
  • The sample is being used for commentary on the music recording in question, and contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articles it is used in (listed under the heading "File links" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media.
  • The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track and is of an inferior quality to the original recording.
  • No other samples from the same track are used in HRWiki.
  • There is no adequate free alternative available.
  • A more detailed fair use rationale may be provided by the user who uploaded this recording.

Any other uses of this recording, on HRWiki or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. If you are the copyright holder of this recording and you feel that its use here does not fall under "fair use" please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for information on how to proceed.

{{personal-image}}
Copyright undetermined
This image is being used as one of the personal images allowed to [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
{{personal-image-sig}}
Copyright undetermined
This image is a personal image in the signature of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
Certain restrictions apply.
{{personal-image-abandoned}}
Copyright undetermined
This personal image has been abandoned. It was most recently used by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
No pages should link to this file.
Another user may claim it, or it may be subject to deletion if deemed unnecessary by the community.

At the moment, people are doing the tagging randomly, which isn't helping if you're trying to find images to tag yourself. — Lapper (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm done now! — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 09:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

All right, fellow admins. Some of you have noticed that there are a lot of IPs out there that have been blocked indefinitely for only making a few trollish edits. Those blocks were generally made more than a year ago, and policy seems to have changed to allow for the second-chances of trolls, and also the chance that there may be a responsible person trying to edit the wiki from that IP. I've made a small, incomplete list of troll IPs that do not appear to be all that serious. Comb through the block list yourself too. Are you all in agreement that some of the IPs should be unblocked? What about all of the IPs? Keep an eye out for any indefinitey blocked AOL proxies. —BazookaJoe 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps 2006 should be a jubilee year! I'm all for giving them another chance. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, unblocking sounds fine. -- Tom 01:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked all 3 of the troll AOL proxies. I did not check the BlockedProxies (no intention/reason to), but I did glance and noticed something that brings up a question. Aren't 152.163.240.0/21 and 152.163.248.0/22 part of the AOL range 152.163.0.0/16 (152.163.0.0 - 152.163.255.255)? —BazookaJoe 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked quite a few tonight, mostly those that were quite minor. A few major trolls, too. It's been so long they probably will never come back. It's dot com has told be that the ranges above are in the AOL range, so Tom or Dot com may want to take a look at the proxies we blocked in Nov 2005, because at least those two are in there. I'll continue slowly unblocking if no one else wants to jump in. —BazookaJoe 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WOOHOO! I can edit again! 216.120.190.111 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Clamburger Bot

I recently made a bot called Clamburger, so could a Boo-roo-cat please give it (bot) status here and (bot,sysop) status on the Fanstuff? -- Super Sam 14:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What's up with these edits: [1], [2], and [3]? What kind of bot is this? What software are you using to control the bot? This is all beside the point, of course, as users aren't even allowed to operate bots. Why do you want to have this one? -- Tom 16:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
For the first two, I accidentally ran over them twice, and for the last one, it was a bug in the double redirect corrector, which I fixed anyway. I'm using the Pywikipediabot software. I wasn't aware of the bots policy. Feel free to block it on the Knowledge Base, but I'm a sysop on the Fanstuff, so I should be able to keep it there. It's making plenty of useful edits. Cut me some slack, I'm still learning. -- Super Sam 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Clamburger per our policy. I'll allow you to use the bot on the fanstuff wiki, but I won't mark it as bot so that its edits will still show up on the default Recent Changes view. -- Tom 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that going to flood Recent Changes? -- Super Sam 03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly right. -- Tom 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Code

It is become a challenge for broth the eye and brain to edit a page. On my last edit, it took me 5 minutes to have my edits appear on the article. Maybe the image code should be retired?--65.167.69.54 14:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you register for an account, that will be the last time you will have to input the code. -- Tom 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Guestbooks

Moved to HRWiki:Guestbooks → Original discussion.

Image formats

I think it's great that our new users are contributing images. Recently it seemed (st least to me) that lots of GIF and JPEG images were being uploaded that should have been PNG. As should have happened, those users were relatively quickly contacted and educated about our image policy and that most of their images really should have been PNG format. Now it seems that those conversations have created the opposite problem: images that should be JPEGs are being uploaded as PNGs. To give just the most recent example: Image:taranchulapeople.png. Should we just chalk this up to people being lazy and not reading the upload page, or should this policy be advertized more/better? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I belive PNG is in fact correct. Despite appearing to be a people pic, It is still part of the flash file, and should be treated no less than any animation. I went through this with a vetern user some time ago, but can't find the link where he explained it to me. In any case, I'm quite sure JPG is used just for images that are photos, not screenshots. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Found it. It was a discussion with Tom from October '04. You can find it here, but it's a big section. Here's the applicable explanation:

Hey Tom, I thought JPG format was to be used for videos and pictures, and PNG for all flash material. Plus I think the JPG looked clearer and brighter. If you really don't want it there, then I'll try another way, but I thought I read somewhere that JPG was preferable for pictures, just not for flash. Is the one JPG really that bad? Please clarify. Thanks. Thunderbird 06:30, 25 Oct 2004 (MST)

Ah ha. There's a little catch here though. We are talking about a screenshot of a movie or image, and not the actual image itself. Screenshots should always be PNGs. The only kinds of JPGs we should have are photos like Image:TheBrothersChapsBandW.jpg or Image:mattchapman.jpg. Perhaps an screenshot like Image:puppetdween.png better illustrates what I'm trying to say. -- Tom 08:35, 25 Oct 2004 (MST)

Hope that clears it up. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Now I understand. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 07:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Main Page Images

I see little value in protecting images on the Main Page if we don't also protect the templates. A vandal can easily upload an offensive image and edit the template in order to display it. Thankfully, this hasn't happened more than once or twice... so far. Thus, the only reason I can think of for protecting main page images is to prevent revert wars from users who like this image better than that image. This reasoning also has its flaws. So, we have couple of options. Either fully protect images and templates while they are live on the main page, or not at all. It seems that since main page image vandalism is few and far between, more people would lean towards no protection for the time being. —BazookaJoe 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It poses a serious question: Should we be more protective from vandalism, or be more quick on the draw? If the whatsnew template was protected, only sysops could edit it and it will reduce the amount of trolling a bit. On the other hand, leaving it unlocked draws trolls to change something that is on the main page, but could be easily reverted as it was vandalize. Another point to consider is that leaving it can help us update the main page with site updates. Looking at the history of it we can clearly see although the more recent updates were added by sysops, a lot of others were updated by regular users. Heck! Even I (who is slow with kind of stuff) managed to update. Sometimes no sysop is around to do this kind of stuff. So our main decisions is to stop a small amount of trolling but have the page non-editable by non-sysops or leave it as it is and be as quick as we are on updates with the usual rv/v now and then. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)l
I think the benefits of leaving both the main page template and image unlocked will outway the downside. But that's just me. Trolls don't seem to be bugging it much at all, and any trolling can be easily reverted. - Joshua 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This is true. But now should we not even protect images due to these reasons, or should we just do it just for the heck of it? I could go both ways. —BazookaJoe 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Reverting images is harder. First you'll need the original version of the image. Keep them protected. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 19:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought you could just hit one of those version links at the bottom and revert it to an old revision. (I remember there was some revert war about 50K Racewalker's image, and the whole image had to be deleted to clear this from happening. --DorianGray
Hi, I didn't know that! Thank you. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 19:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The difference with images is that if a sysop deletes an article, it can be restored by another sysop. But ff a sysop deletes an image, it's gone for good, un-recoverable. As far as your average troll though, normal users cannot do anything to an image that can't be revereted. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Block link on diff

I have often wished for a contributions link on recent changes and a link to the block page when checking the difference between pages. We now have both. If you come across vandalism when clicking a "diff" link, you don't have to click back to the recent changes list for a "block" button, because now there's one right under the vandal's name. Also, not too long ago I added the following link to the block page:

This link automatically appears whenever you click on one of the "block" links, and it has the username or IP already filled in for you. That way, you can quickly and easily check to see whether a user has already been blocked before imposing one, and we can avoid double-blocking. (Just how long is two infinte periods of time, anyway? :) ) Keep on tranglin'. — It's dot com 19:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, shiny! Look how easy it is to block notorious vandal It's dot com! Mwahahahaha! ;) Seriously, grood job. :) Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Blocking Dot com? Meh, it's been done... ;) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Says the user who once blocked himself coz he was bored. --DorianGray
Yup, I block all sorts of people when I'm bored. 'Cept JoeyDay. 'Cause, you know. Severe burnination being the result. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Severe burnination? He'd kill all your dogs! Well, now I'm done with the stupid references, so lemme get to the point. Why are Sysops able to block other sysops? I't just seems stupid, is all. Seriously (Talk) 03:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Supposing a sysop went bad... --DorianGray
Unless Thunderbird go's a little trigger-happy with the blocking (and he's the only person I'd suspect) no one would ever go bad. I'm watching you thunderbird..........Seriously (Talk) 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Navigation Templates

I think that Template:charnav and Template:toonnav are unneeded. Toonnav is unneeded for the same reason the Toons and Shorts templates were deleted - they have no connection. For example, 20X6 vs. 1936 has no relation to Arcade Game or The System is Down, apart from the fact that they are shorts. As for the chararcter navigation, there's really nothing to decide what order they should go in apart from how they are stacked on the character page. It is made pretty much pointless by the template at the bottom, anyway.

And that's my six cents. - Super Sam 06:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll give that one a hearty AGREE'D! We went through a similar phase, when we started making templates for a bunch of questionable groups, like Old-Timey. This is the same thing. Nav Templates are good, but I think this is a bit overkill. Anything more that I say will just echo Super Sam's other excellent points. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also agreed. I wanted to sy something when I first saw them on my watchlist, but didn't had the time to. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. They don't do any harm and just as in the {{sbenav}} template they serve as easy navigation. PDF files have arrows to easily get from one page to another, and so it does nothing but good to make it easy for users to go to the next toon in the logical sequence. For most that means date order, for others such as the charachter page, it is in the order that it appears on the screen and how we list them on the toon page. I R F 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that the nav templates serve two purposes: to easily browse through different toons and to easily 'watch' the toon in question without having to browse all the way to the bottom. I personally thought Old-Timey was too big for its own good, but complete removal was not something I was entirely happy with. --Stux 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on whether there should or shouldn't be navigation at the top, but I should point out that needing the navigation template for the "watch" button is beside the point, because there's always the {{watchtoon}} template. — It's dot com 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I kind of like the navigation templates. It's true that the toons and shorts don't have much relation to each other, but it's also nice to be able to just look through them all quickly without having to go back to the previous page and click on the next one. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that they should be deleted. TBird pretty much sums up my beliefs. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Top of the World

I was wondering if it would be possible to have a [Top of Page] link next to the [edit] link? I R F 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? -- Tom 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Because it gets pretty annoying on long pages the scroll all the way to the top again. To see the table of contents or the top personal navigation buttons. I R F 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You might try poking around http://meta.wikimedia.org. They wrote this thing, so they know more about it than we do. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You could also submit it as a feature request if it hasn't been submitted already. BTW the "End" button does the same thing, unless you want to be able to go straight to the TOC. So i can kinda understand there. But if the TOC's somewhere else (like at the bottom of the page or hidden) then where would it go? Where the toc goes? the very top if it's hidden? hide the button for that page? --Stux 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he just means the top of the page. And don't you mean "Home" button? — It's dot com 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
At the moment I am doing something that I swore I would never do...use a MAC, and the GUI doesn't even have one of the scrolly ball things. That, and no end or home button either. Problem-matic. Its just temporary as my normal PC is not hooked up to the internet. I was just throwing the jump to top thing out as a suggestion but if its not a popular idea then nevermind. I think when Tom responds with a simple "why?" that told me about how far this idea would go. I R F 04:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Watch links

Please shoot me dead if I'm posting erroneously. Or even wrong.

The sbemails have, at the top, a "watch" link. Wow, would it be cool to have that on every page directly describing a toon. As is I need to hit END, click the "watch 'homestar eats a sandwich'" link, and then HOME to follow the commentary. Top and bottom is a good thing.

Just a thought. Qermaq 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that most have these now. My shame! I see we're all up ons with this. Qermaq 05:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, those nav templates have been popping up pretty much everywhere. Once the ball starts rolling on a project, the whole wiki's changed formats within a week usually. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Projects Makeover

dicussion orignially from here

I am posting this request in a high-visibility location as there has been very little feedback regarding this topic about a new layout for the Projects Page. The preliminary new design is linked from within that discussion. Thanks! --Stux 17:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have applied IRF's new look he had been working on for some time. Questions, comments, praise (or otherwise) can go here. --Stux 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that came completely out of left field. There wasn't really a whole lot of discussion about this, was there? While I appreciate the boldness, I'm not so sure this was ready to go live. I can see IRF has worked hard on it, and I certainly don't want to discourage this kind of forward thinking, but I really think this should be pulled down until more discussion can be held and more tweaking can be done. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Joey Day on that. While being bold is important, it's also important to get approval before taking on a project, even if that project happens to be the projects page. About the new look, I can personally appriciate the work that went into it. You did a very nice job, Invisible Robot Fish. However, almost every page on this wiki has the standard white background for all text. If we can get a bit of approval on this design and tweak the code some, I believe we can have a solid page. — Lapper (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that guys. Most of the surprise would be my responsability. Instead of listing multiple reasons for my oversight, I will proceed to revert the changes and begin the discussion here. (IRF kept the two versions synchronized and I will do the same). --Stux 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I had a discussion going on my talk page but there wasn't much discussion yet, feel free to tweak, discuss, whatever you want. I think that there should be some clear way to tell done projects from active or incomplete ones. We don't always have white backgrounds as evidenced by The Stick, STUFF and others. Althought I admit that this design isn't ready yet (which is why I had it here, I think it is close to being a ready to use design. I R F 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Just how many times do I have to BEG for people to help/review/tweak/critique here or here? I'm sorry for the frustration, but Stux is the only one that has even commented and I have asked multiple times. Other people are obviously aware of this but haven't contributed in any way. This is beginning to feel like a pocket veto. I R F 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Another week and still not one responce I R F 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
OK then. --TheThingé 13:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am copying the following response from Tom:
I know I was very happy to see that you reverted the change. I don't think the page needs any type of different style. -- Tom 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(I personally like the new look, and IRF's rationale for the colors.) --Stux 14:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a question: Why should this page have a special format? -- Tom 19:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I know I was very happy to see that you reverted the change. I don't think the page needs any type of different style. -- Tom 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Tom: I have copied your response to the Projects Talk page for IRF and everyone else to see. (I personally like the new look, and IRF's rationale for the colors.) Everyone else: if anyone has even the slightest feedback please let us know in that page. Thanks! --Stux 14:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: I have tweaked the design again here and am waiting for additional comments. I R F 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see a background Marzipan in the design somewhere again. Also I wouldn't mind splitting "Ongoing" projects from "Unfinished" projects. Besides that, I think it's looking good. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Correct "overruled" spelling, but it seems clear to me. - Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:Here's a question: Why should this page have a special format? -- Tom 19:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here was my rational... #1 Projects is a special page. It is not an article with information but a section to highlight what needs to be done on the wiki. It is directly linked from another special page The Stick The Stick, which also has a special design. In the STUFF section, there are different colored sections to let the user easily know Fun Fact issues that are already settled. The color give an instant sence of oh, this is different, let me take note. When I went to the Projects looking for something useful to do, I had a hard time knowing what was old and forgotten and what actually needed to be done. I felt that with the introduction of two different bg colors, that one who is scrolling would quickly be able to scroll to desired section because they stand out from one another.

Summary

  • Precedent in pages like The Stick The Stick,Introduction and STUFF utilize different background for asthetic and practical reasons.
  • Easy of use and functionality
  • Crisp clean minty-fresh look!

I R F 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

HRWiki:The Stick (not The Stick) and HRWiki:Introduction have different formats because they are mainly for-display pages. They are not edited on a regular basis, and are designed to look pretty while having things layed out in a visually pleasing mannar. HRWiki:STUFF has a special format because of the voting process that it uses, which Ben developed and which uses all sorts of special templates and so on.
Putting a colored box around something isn't that complicated. As has been demonstrated, it can be done with a <div style="border:something> or I suppose even with a <blockquote style="color:something">. If putting a colored box around two sections is all this is about, then I don't see a problem, but I don't see any advantage to giving this page a special format (<div>s of padding, tables, etc.). -- Tom 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The sections could be divided into the categories you had them in, but as Tom said, there's no need to make this page visually pleasing like the more high-traffic pages that new users regularly hit. Not needing it is not to say that I don't like it. It looks excellent, but it's simply not necessary. — Lapper (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I made a few alterations based on Tom's suggestion. I R F 14:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Last week I made the code much simpler and only made the div codes around the two sections. Tom, can you take a look at it again. I have restrained myself to only asking about this about once a week...I can't go much slower. I R F 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see why it's needed, but I made a few changes to your proposal page. -- Tom 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I've seen two, maybe three of his [Drwho's] sockpuppets make vulgar vandalism today. I, being an eleven year old, don't want to see this stuff (although I'm pretty mature for this age), and nobody else wants to see his absurd edtit summaries. We need to make a censorship plicy on the wiki, and urgently. By this I mean there might be something in the software that would allow any swearwords to be replaced with asterisks. If there is any way to do this, please do it fast, and leave out the freakin', crap, and other obligatory words in our wiki. If there is not, can you take away edit summaries so people don't have to see this? Thanks. — Seriously (Talk) 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with automatic censorship, and would not want to see it implemented here. I realize that sometimes it's a chore to police it manually, but I think we do a good enough job as it is. Most casual readers don't look at the inner workings, and so as long as we can keep it off the pages we should be fine. — It's dot com 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Then I guess the only reasonable thing to do is make sure all of the IP addresses Dr. Who's used are blcoked permanently. — Seriously (Talk) 01:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that we don't block IP addresses permanently (not counting open proxies), but thanks for your concern. — It's dot com 01:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? I thought at least some were blocked permanently. ??? — Seriously (Talk) 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Running Gags

I've made a formal proposal for the sub-categorization of the running gags page. I'd really like critique and advice as to whether this is a worthy idea to go through with. Additionally, feel free add, merge, or otherwise tinker with the places the articles are to go in the table. — Lapper (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The job is already done, but I gotta say good work. I had been thinking myself about proposing we sort our runnings gags. I was impressed when I saw what you did in recent changes. —BazookaJoe 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And now for the Inside Jokes category. Please see the followup discussion for the next stage. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 11:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting

Read first. I think that semi-protecting the whatsnew and the featured article templates would be a fantastic way to prevent oodles of high-visibility vandalism while still allowing responsible users to edit. While Wikipedia suggests that semi-protecting should not be used as an outright prevention of vandalism, I think that this type of wiki could survive using semi-protection for this purpose. After all, WP's main page templates are fully protected; ours are fully exposed. A vandal has demonstrated a few weeks ago the ability to vandalize with offensive images without having to log in or upload anything, and I think it's high time to save the main page from this, without sacrificing the priveleges of responsible non-sysops. I suggest that we set the ability-to-edit-semi-protected-pages threshold for logged in users to 5, 10, or 15 edits. (And while I'm at it, I suggest the same for Moving pages. Sorry to be demanding, Dot com :) ). —BazookaJoe 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The technical side of this would not be that difficult. The question is, what do we want our policy to be? Also, you're saying sysops need to be able to semi-protect and un-semi-protect specific pages, right? — It's dot com 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Policy for this, roughly put, is to prevent vandalism on the main page templates, and to put a temporary lock on a page that is persistantly vandalized over a short period of time (if range blocks fail). We won't need to semi-protect very much for the latter reason because we can afford to block ranges when larger wikis can't. We will likely only need to semi-protect something under extraordinary circumstances, like if there's a massive world-wide timed crusade against Strong Bad Email. Oh, and affirmative on the sysop function. —BazookaJoe 04:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've given this some thought, and I think that if we do end up semi-protecting any pages, we should prevent only annonies from editing. There have been cases where a relatively unknown user with only one or two edits has noted an update on Template:whatsnew. I know that this does leave us open to vandals creating throwaway a counts to vandalize semi-portected pages, but I think it's worth the risk. I am also not deadset on this, and my opinion could be changed if presented with a reasonable argument. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 03:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Letting brand new or extremely lightweight users edit whatsnew wouldn't decrease vandalism enough to be worth the risk. Our persistant vandals who know their way around a wiki would create throwaway accounts as often as AOL shifts their IP, and our purpose for semi-protecting it would be largely defeated; it wouldn't slow down main page template vandalism desirably. New and anonymous users with a new update can still post it on H*R.com updates 2006, which unfortunately seems to have lost its priority to whatsnew more than it should have. It isn't going to be a problem if a new user cannot edit whatsnew, because once it is posted in H*R.com updates, it will certainly be added to the main page within minutes. —BazookaJoe 04:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to help, here's the link to Wikipedia's Semi-protection policy. -- Tom 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it looks like this functionality is a part of MediaWiki version 1.6 (see Bug:1735), so unless you all think this is a hugely pressing need, I'ma just wait until we upgrade instead of hacking our current version. — It's dot com 06:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Waiting is good for me. -- Tom 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for semi-protecting. Yesterday I came to the wiki and was greeted on the main page with "N- STOLE MY COW" in massave font, several hundred times in a row in the "what's new" box, which took significantly longer to load and stretched the page to enormous size. The Main Page was originally unprotected when I first came to the wiki, and it was started being protected for the same reason way back when. I think we're getting to the point where we should take it a step further, and protect against any user with less than a dozen edits or so. As an added bonus, this will give another editing perk to respected users, but those that aren't up to the level of sysop. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protecting won't stop heavy trolls, but other then full protection nothing does. If a small time troll want to edit the whatsnew and see a "view source" tag at the top of the screen, and he doesn't know about the semi-protaction, we will just move to another, less important page. I'm all for it. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 11:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User categories

I've been gone for a while, but now I'm back, and I noticed that userboxes have become somewhat of a craze lately. I like the idea, but I think so far it's been missing one thing that would make it very useful: user categories. I don't think every userbox should have a category associated with it, but I've come up with a few that I think would be practical. I'd like to propose the following four categories that users will be encouraged to add to their userpages (assuming they really belong in the category):

User categories like these would come in handy when trying to find wiki members who can help in situations like this, where someone who doesn't own one of the above is trying to verify edits to transcripts. I want to emphasize that user categories should be kept to a very functional minimum. Categories like Users who love The Poopsmith, while having the potential for a lot of fun, should not be allowed because they wouldn't serve any practical function. What do you think? — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but kinda useless. Just my thoughts. And it's great to have you back, man. — Seriously (Talk) 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in it. Its also a good accountibilty thingy (to see which users are doing their part to TBC). j/k. Also welcome back Joey Day. I R F 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/HRWiki:Da_Basement"