HRWiki talk:Articles about HRWiki

From Homestar Runner Wiki

About this page

I think it would be interesting to have a list of what others have to say about our wiki itself. Some of it is informative, some of it is funny, and some of it is unflattering, but it's all potentially important as praise or criticism. (And the Uncyclopedia article gets funnier every time I read it.) What do you think? — It's dot com 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As you wisely put it in the HRWiki namespace, I think it's a fine idea. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, although I see no criticism. The MeatBall one is hardly long enough for an opinion, the Wikipedia one is written from the NPOV, and the Uncyclopedia article is obviously not meant to be taken at face value. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 01:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Except the list is incomplete. And not everything at Uncyclopedia is incorrect. — It's dot com 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And the MeatBall one was written by yours truly merely to avoid the "?" link (what UseMod does instead of making them red) in the TourBusMap. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Screen Savers Interview info page

Should we include the Screen Savers Interview info page? Its twenty-ish words aren't as much as the fifty-ish word spot on the Chicago Tribune bit, but it's still something. -- Tom 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to incorporate articles or interviews that briefly mention us as well. This page can and should be expanded to include those. Flashforward Interview - 10 Feb 2006 and Cold Hard Flash Interview - 1 Dec 2005 would be very nice to include as well. —BazookaJoe 06:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Is it okay if I added content warning this? It contains a lot of swearing, and I wouldn't click that link if you're disturbed by Homestar Runner porn, but it is an article about the Homestar Runner Wiki. I don't actually like Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I wouldn't be upset if it was too obscene. I remember that the link to that page in Article Sightings was removed. —Shwoo 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can do without adding that link to their article — the addition of the information that they have a page about us isn't worth the risk of younger users going over to it, even with the warning at the top of our page. I think it's just too obscene. Trey56 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. We are not putting that link on this page. Even if it is an article about the HRWiki, this is a family-oriented site and putting that link on this page or any other on this wiki would be just plain disrespectful. -Brightstar Shiner 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, that's exactly the kind of article whose existence I'm interested in. I've never claimed that we're perfect, but a lot of people seem to think we think we are, and it's important to know what kind of criticism (constructive or otherwise) is out there. — It's dot com 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the link is OK, as long as we have that warning on the top of the page. --Trogga 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

{with a pained look} Please, no! Even just the picture at the top of the page was enough to make my heart jump into my throat. There are people even younger than me who visit this site and if they clicked on that link, there would be some serious backlash and you know it. Feel free to read it on your own if you must (0_o), but don't post the link for all to see. No warning at the top of a page could be enough for this. -Brightstar Shiner 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Brightstar on this one. Although we are looking for alternative viewpoints, Uncyclopedia can provide a much more wholesome and humorous rebuttal to our project than Encyclopedia Dramatica can. There's a place where we draw the line here, and I feel that posting a link to that article sufficiently crosses it. — Lapper (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'd be okay with some link to swearing, and maybe even some "R" rated material, but if there's... well, you know, it starts with a "p" (Hey, I'm not sayin' it.), that's not only disturbing... that's kinda immoral. And I'm the least moral person... ever! I'm puttin' my foot down. (By the way, even though the supposed pictures aren't exactly... well, you know... it's still immoral if they're artistic renderings... of you-know-what.) In conclusion, no. Bluebry 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I lean against including it... even without the highly offensive image, there remains the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not only a vulgar site but one that constantly attempts to smear other sites. Links to ED are actually banned at Wikipedia because of this. Of course, it's the offensive image that is the main issue, anyway. Heimstern Läufer 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I still see no good reason not to link to that article other than "it's not family-oriented". --Trogga 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really one to put my foot down about material that's not "family-oriented", but these images are pretty much pornography. "Not family-oriented" is an understatement here. — Lapper (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the overwhelming opposition, I believe we should include the link with an extra warning if deemed necessary. I don't find the image to be all that offensive, although I see why others would. It presents another opinion of the HRWiki (fairly humoriously, I think) unequivalent to that on Unencyclopedia. Is it smearing the HRWiki? Yes, but this page is supposed to document all opinions of the HRWiki. —Zelinda 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)