HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 01:28, 29 August 2018 by Tom (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

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)


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. --Mario2.PNG 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? --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 01:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, anyone home? --Mario2.PNG 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. -- 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 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 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 Thanks! The Goblin!! 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! For my own records: (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. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 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). --Mario2.PNG 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)

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. --Mario2.PNG 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)

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 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 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:

  • Default
  • Current
Concern Decision / remark
  • anon. only
  • anonnies only
"anonnies"? "Hey, anonny, why don't you go... brush up on your knowledge of the Homestar Runner body of work or something and not attribute it to yourself!"
  • Redirected page to $1
  • redirect to $1
present tense? lowercase? also, why not just default? preference
  • Blanked the page
  • blanked the page
lowercase? why not just default?
  • Replaced content with '$1'
  • replaced the page with '$1'
  • Note - After saving, you may have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla / Firefox / Safari: hold Shift while clicking Reload, or press either Ctrl-F5 or Ctrl-R (Command-R on a Macintosh); Konqueror: click Reload or press F5; Opera: clear the cache in Tools → Preferences; Internet Explorer: hold Ctrl while clicking Refresh, or press Ctrl-F5.
  • {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Preferences|'''See [[Help:User Preferences]] for help deciphering the options.''' <nowiki>}}</nowiki> Note: After saving, you may have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. *Mozilla / Firefox: hold down Shift while clicking Reload, or press Ctrl-Shift-R (Cmd-Shift-R on Apple Mac) *Safari: press Cmd-Option-E *IE: hold Ctrl while clicking Refresh, or press Ctrl-F5 *Konqueror: simply click the Reload button, or press F5 *Opera users may need to completely clear their cache in Tools→Preferences.
I recommend we delete MediaWiki:Clearyourcache and move "See Help:User Preferences for help deciphering the options." onto MediaWiki:Preferences-summary. The entire preferences page was reworked beginning with the next version. This will need to be reviewed once we upgrade (whenever that is).
  • Template:disambig
  • HRWiki:Links_to_disambiguating_pages
supposed to designate which template(s) are used to mark disambiguation pages. non-default setting breaks the functionality of Special:Disambiguations. also, HRWiki:Links to disambiguating pages is possibly pointless. This was set in the earliest days of the wiki and should be reviewed and probably removed.
  • Revision history of "$1"
  • Revision history of $1
removal of quotes, just different for seemingly no reason - why not just default? preference; likely inspired by the same change at Wikipedia
  • E-mail new password
  • Email new password
"Email" generally should be spelled "E-mail" nevermind, but still why not just keep the default? "Never mind" should be two words.
Never_mind, then ;-) -- I guess I figured out why we have non-default on this, anyway -- probably for consistency with the H*R spelling, which is usually (always?) non-hyphenated. LobStoR 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You must be a registered user and logged in to move a page.
  • You must be a registered user and logged in to move a page, or this page may be protected from page moves.
This message is not even displayed for protected page move attempts. (in that case, it displays MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext, which is defaulted to "This page has been locked to prevent editing.") This change was probably correct back when it was implemented but after various upgrades is now out of date. It should be reviewed and probably removed.
  • Edit pages
  • Edit this page
Incorrect grammar for the list at Special:ListGroupRights

edit: also feeds MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext-withaction "You do not have permission to $2, for the following reasons:"

We need to see where else this is used. Obviously it was changed for some reason, but the change could be out of date and may need to be removed. If it's still current, then the amount of sense made on the group rights page (grammar is not a problem per se) is potentially a secondary concern, not a primary one
I think it's $2 in MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext-withaction -- "You do not have permission to $2, for the following reasons:" LobStoR 20:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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  SHARD * 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  SHARD * 12:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like they're both working now too. Thanks! --   PURPLE  SHARD * 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. HweEloR.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 18:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


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? TheThin 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.
TheThin 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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  SHARD * 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

HweEloR.png 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)


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)
Personal tools