HRWiki talk:FAQ

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Small Changes)
(Small Changes: possible solution for DorianGray)
Line 155: Line 155:
:Whoa. I'm afraid it may actually be just me. The font size has become smaller on other URLs as well... Okay, with this new evidence, anyone know the cause--and better yet, how to fix it? --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]]
:Whoa. I'm afraid it may actually be just me. The font size has become smaller on other URLs as well... Okay, with this new evidence, anyone know the cause--and better yet, how to fix it? --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]]
::One cause of small text I've noticed is when the loading is stopped right before it is finished. It's happened to me a few times, but I believe in your case some personal CSS might be in order? I'll see if I can whip something up. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::One cause of small text I've noticed is when the loading is stopped right before it is finished. It's happened to me a few times, but I believe in your case some personal CSS might be in order? I'll see if I can whip something up. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Do you have a mouse with a scroll wheel? If so, click on a "diff" link, [ like this one] for example. Hold down Ctrl and move the mouse wheel up, then down. The size of the text should change. Adjust it until it's back to normal, and you're done. Hope this helps! — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 03:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:49, 28 December 2005

Have a question? Post it here and we will try to answer it as soon as possible.

Current | Archive 1 (1-25) | Archive 2 (26-50) | Archive 3 (51-75) | Archive 4 (76-100) | Archive 5 (101-125) | Archive 6 (126-150) | Archive 7 (151-175) | Archive 8 (176-200) | Archive 9 (201-225) | Archive 10 (226-250)



I really wish I could contribute images, but I can't save in PNG! where can I get a PNG saver???-- Benol, aka Coach B 13:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Most programs allow you to save in PNG format. Do you have microsoft paint? It's a simple program, but that's the one I find myself usually using. Once you have the image you want in the paint program, press file, save, then when you get to the box where you type in the file name you want it saved as, you'll notice right below that you have a box labled "Save as type", with the default option usually being 24-bit bitmap. Open that drop down box, and one of the options, (probably the very last one) will be "PNG". Save as that, and it all comes out looking PNGful. Let me know if that doesn't work for you. Thunderbird 13:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
On mine it only has BMP, JPG, and GIF.-- Benol, aka Coach B 12:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You get PNG only if you're using Windows XP. --Stux 12:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Benol, I use a free program called Irfanview to save my pics as PNGs. You can also add cool effects on pictures. —FireBird|Talk 13:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh. Sorry 'bout that. I figured it was a more common format. Yea, irfanview looks okie dokie. I gotta update my program anyways, MS paint isn't known for being a master program of photo editing and the like. Thunderbird 19:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
For the record, Irfanview rocks my world. —AbdiViklas 05:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

image problems

Whenever I try to upload an image, it always says "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again." I'm doing everything correct; the file always ends in .png or .PNG, but for some reason it never works! I seem to be having the same problem that Benol has. — talk Bubsty edits 05:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It also happens to me. NO!!! PLEASE... DON'T SHOOT!!! Tampo (T/C) AND SOMEONE GET THiS FREAKiN CURSOR AWAY FROM ME!!!!!

Could it be a Mac (pre OS X) incompatibility thing? Seems strange. I dunno. --Stux 05:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as I have Mac OS X, I don't think so. — talk Bubsty edits 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, there goes that idea. That's what I get for assuming that you're running OS 9 or something. Might have something to do with the problems you've been having staying connected on IRC. --Stux 05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Are there any programs on Mac that will save something as a PNG? (Like Microsoft paint, except thats for windows). — talk Bubsty edits 17:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Image Magick i'm pretty sure should have PNG support. And it has Mac OS X binaries! --Stux 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks! — talk Bubsty edits 17:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Of Tense Verbs

I'm curious, how much do you think we should use the second person in the articles? I have always been taught that professional writing should avoid using the 2nd person (or at least i think i did somewhere). But I also know this wiki is slightly more personal than that. Being Impersonal in MI,--Stux 15:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should avoid second-person where possible. (P.S. For those forgetting their persons, second person is when the writer addresses the reader.) — InterruptorJones 17:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject, we might as well drop the first-person as well. ([1], for example) -- Tom 18:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh wow. Sounds like a job for grape-nuts, should he ever get back in business. We see ---> There is shown, or something. Thunderbird 22:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It may not be that easy, as changing everything around may leave some non-sensical results. This will require raw manpower. (And of course ladypower too!) --Stux 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, either/or I guess. I think "there is shown" would technically work, but I think better results would be acquired if it was done by hand, yeah. Just follow the google list Tom provided, updating it after every couple of changes, until they're all done. I'm not up for that now though, I'm busy watching a movie. Thunderbird 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Before we go on with this, I want to suggest that we find something besides "There is shown" to replace "We see". It's not very good style to use the passive voice without excellent reason. Personally, I'm not sure what's so bad about "we see", and given the choice between it and the passive voice, I would consider "we see" to be the lesser of two evils. But maybe we can think of something else that's better than either one. Heimstern Läufer 01:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I often replace the "we see" with "one sees" when i gotta do technical writing. Would something like that work? --Stux 02:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps another option (following mein Führer's suggestion); since we're not using a bot anyways, perhaps change it on a case to case basis - often flipping it around. For one instance of this, perhaps change (from modeling):
...we see a closeup of Strong Bad in the same outfit, now holding a tennis racket.
...a closeup of Strong Bad in the same outfit is shown, now holding a tennis racket.
I'll check back later; my movie's over, and I've moved on to another show. Thunderbird 02:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
ABDIVIKLAS: {vomits} Augh! Bleh! Ewww! Grugh! {suddenly sotto voce} No. (Sorry; I don't want that to be insulting; I simply wanted a chance to use that quote!) The vast majority of these problems can be resolved with active verbs and camera-direction conventions, e.g.: "Cut to a closeup of...". Also "pan to reveal," etc. I can't think off the top of my head of any needs this couldn't be manipulated to cover. —AbdiViklas 03:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a great way to do it. Oh, and Stux, concerning the "one sees" method: that works very well in German. It sometimes works well in English, sometimes not. But I think Abdi's suggestion will cover it here. Heimstern Läufer 03:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should just change it to whatever is in 3rd person, but still makes sense. It would be repetative to have every time "one sees". Or, we could just leave that part out all together. A-like so:

  • Before: We see Creepy Comb-Over Strong Bad slowly rise up from behind it.
  • After: Creepy Comb-Over Strong Bad slowly rises up from behind it.

--SaltyTalk! 05:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

All this technical english language nuance discussion is getting beyond me. I'm sure what you guys come up with will work just fine. Although I don't think Lappy 48- I mean Salty's solution will work in all cases. Even in my earlier blockquoted example, I think just getting rid of "we see" without replacing it with any text would look a bit out of place. Thunderbird 07:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Not in all cases but it might work in some. Perhaps if we had a list of different kinds of examples (where each would be treated differently) along with their appropriate rephrasings? --Stux 12:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing necessarily wrong with using second person. It's a style choice, pure and simple. That is to say, if when you are writing you find second person to be the most natural, then there is no reason to resort to awkward constructions just to avoid it. I'm not saying that the sentences in question couldn't be recast to avoid the issue altogether, but we certainly don't need to blindly go through the wiki replacing things, let alone have a bot do it. — It's dot com 22:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice if the bot was smart enough to do it so that it sounds natural. Then it would fix all our other issues while it's at it. Maybe. Anyway, it's still nice to have some "air of pompousness" I mean, level of formality that most encyclopedias bear. Then again this isn't just an encyclopedia. It is a fansite. However, there are at least some places in this site where third person and formal sense would definitely be better. --Stux 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting Question

I have posted a (rather lengthy) discussion on our current STUFF voting procedures. I ask that those who are interested would take a look and comment if you have the time. (Yes, it is lengthy.) I am posting this here so that the post has greater visibility. Thanks! --Stux 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


what does [sic] mean??? I want to know.-- Benol, aka Coach B 08:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Sic" is an abbreviation for the Latin "sicut", which means "thus". You write it when you are quoting someone who made a mistake: you can't correct the mistake, or you'd be misquoting, so the "sic" lets your readers know it's not your mistake. For example, if you were quoting the Email writer in local news, you might write, "Does Strong Badia have its' [sic] own local news?" to let people know that it was the original writer who spelled "its" wrong. Heimstern Läufer 08:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. When quoting somebody who made a spelling or grammar error, you stick that thing there so nobody thinks it was you that made the mistake. It shows that you noticed it, and left it because you were quoting somebody's typage. Thunderbird 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Those last two explanations are close, except that (1) sic is not an abbreviation, and (2) it doesn't necessarily indicate an error, just that the quoted text is being reproduced exactly as it should be (usually, however, it does indicate some kind of mistake in the original). Note that it isn't required to insert a sic unless there is a reasonable chance of misunderstanding. See also: The Chicago Manual of Style § 10.66, at 378 (14th ed.), and A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, at 601 (1st ed.). — It's dot com 16:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that we're in this topic... do we leave the sics visible to the regular user or hidden inside the HTML comments? I've seen two instances of the latter (hidden inside HTML) and I thought i had seen it where it was not hidden, but actually placed in the transcript itself. A quick search definitely reveals some sics that are visible like in Thy Dungeonman, and I know i've seen commented ones out there. --Stux 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User Image

I know you can only have 1 user image, but can you have a second image for your sig?-- Benol, aka Coach B 20:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people have been uploading images for their sigs, and the admins have generally been turning a blind eye to this. I think if you want to, go ahead and upload another image for your sig. (Just don't tell anyone!) small_logo.pngUsername-talk 20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't turn a blind eye to it, but I would like to see our policy changed. I would hereby like to discuss changing it. Here is my proposal: Everyone is allowed two regular-size personal images plus one signature-size image. What you do with them is up to you. If you want to have two images in your sig, you can use your second personal image for that, but then you only get one on your user page. If you want to forego a sig image, you can still put the signature-size image on your user page if you want. Images in signatures must not be bigger than 20px. Opinions? — It's dot com 20:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I like that idea. Two personal images is much nicer, and allows for more freedom. This is why you're the best, It's dot com. I really think it's a good idea. You have my support. --DorianGray
I also second the proposal. We've been discussing this issue for a long time. I believe, however, that it should also be noted that a personal image is defined as An image or photograph, that has been uploaded by you to the HRWiki server, and is currently in use only in your personal userspace. A signature image no larger than twenty pixels also seems appropriate, but did we ever agree to a final size limitation on signature length itself? — Lapper (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea too. Enough people don't even have personal images to begin with, so I think this a reasonable proposition. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 20:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to throw a wrench at things or anything, but what about "gray area images" where several users share it and some people deem "the communities" and not their own, but are not used in actual articles? I know i'm spoiling people's fun here... --Stux 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that if it isn't used in any article and is on your userspace, it counts as a personal image. I would like a second opinion on this. — Lapper (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I would say images that are not used on any main namespace artice count as a personal image of the uploader. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 20:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you mean "...not used on any non-User or User Talk namespace article...", Considering User: is a namespace? — Lapper (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I meant "Main namespace," but forgot to write main. I just fixed it. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 21:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The way HSRusername put it is how I've always looked at it. Note, however, that images used to make points in discussions or on STUFF pages are okay too, as well as things like templates and so on. But if an image is only in the User namespace, it is assigned to the person using it or the person who uploaded it (which are usually one and the same). — It's dot com 21:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind moving forward on Dot com's idea. Now that we have more space and bandwidth, personal images aren't as big of an issue. We do want to keep some limits just so things don't get out of hand, but I think two images plus a sig sized image is a reasonable limit. Good thinking, Dot com. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 21:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with It's dot com's proposal as written. (I don't like signature images, and wouldn't mind not allowing them at all, but I know better than to argue with this crowd about that. Check out Wikipedia's things to avoid in signatures list. Most of what they suggest users don't do we allow for some reason.) I would however like to add the stipulation that all images be tagged and categorized appropriately. I have already set up a nice category system that can be used. It would be much easier to tell what images are personal images, because they would be licensed correctly by their uploaders. This of course could stem into a greater project of tagging all the images on the Wiki. Most of them would of course be tagged with {{web-screenshot}}, but the framework is in place for other licenses should the need arise. -- Tom 00:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Two images is what i've been saying all along! Elcool (talk)(contribs) 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (Please don't shoot me.)

I like that idea. Nice goin' dot com. — talk Bubsty edits 04:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yay! Now I can have my Van Buren Award image without any trouble. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

Image tags

I've been looking for a project to do. I'll get right on those tags. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Should I tag the images that are orphaned, put them up for deletion, both, or neither? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 15:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Neither, for now. There's already a special page that shows unused images, so there's no need to tag them. — It's dot com 16:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, before we go on tagging all orphaned images for deletion, I suggest that they be carefully inspected before they are deleted. --Stux 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Right. Do not mark any images for deletion solely because they have been orphaned. (But if they're the wrong format or an exact duplicate of another image, then that's a different story. Is that right, Tom?) — It's dot com 17:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
All right I'll tag them along with the rest. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
We need a DVD cover category. I'm no good with making templates or I'd do it myself. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I just made it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 07:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Great job ACupOfCoffee! Stramy's done good too! I have a question ... are these from the DVD too? I know some might be both but my guess is that only the real source needs to the mentioned. --Stux 14:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I very highly doubt that they are. I'm in favor of just the {{web-screenshot}} tag by itself on those, but what do others think? Better safe than sorry, or as little legalese as necessary? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, both tags say literally "This is a screenshot from...". The image we have is only a literal screenshot of a web page. Legally, if the tags are worth anything at all, then the web one is enough. —AbdiViklas 04:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Appearances VS. Filmography

Is there any sort of definition between "Appearances" and "Filmography" on a page? I noticed mostly it's items that have "Appearances", whereas characters have "Filmography", which makes sense to me. Why I ask is if there's a difference, because I noticed a lot of places have "Filmography". If you ask me, they should have "Appearances" because they're inanimate. "Filmography" sounds more like an acting thing, whereas "Appearances" sounds like an... appearing thing. Later, if it turns out there should be a difference between the two, or if one should be scrapped for another, we could take this to Standards as well. --DorianGray

Your logic about places having appearances makes sense to me. Filmographies feels like it should apply only to people (or in our case, dumb animal characters). — It's dot com 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It's all over the place too... Small, rarely used Places like the Error Page and the Race Track say "Filmography", but so do a few big, highly linked places--The Field, for example. (Strongbadia, on the other hand, says "Appearances".) --DorianGray
I think I got them all. There were fewer than I thought, but now it's consistant (and logical). --DorianGray


How do you know when there is a new user and when to welcome them? NO!!! PLEASE... DON'T SHOOT!!! Tampo (T/C) AND SOMEONE GET THiS FREAKiN CURSOR AWAY FROM ME!!!!!

If on recent changes a user creates a userpage and has no talk page, then you should welcome them. If there is a user whose name appears red on rc, but has a talk page, it's likely that they've been welcomed. If you go to the talk page and click the history tab, you can check to see if they've already been welcomed, or if they haven't and just created a talk page a while back. But if you're not sure at all, just check that user's contributions and see how far they've been here. If they've been here for a while, with no welcome, it's you're decsion to welcome.--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating an account

On the create an account or log in, there is only Username: and password. How in the world are you supposed to create an account? NO!!! PLEASE... DON'T SHOOT!!! Tampo (T/C) AND SOMEONE GET THiS FREAKiN CURSOR AWAY FROM ME!!!!!

Until the lockdown is lifted (which, according to all reports I've gotten, should be soon), you have to ask a sysop to do it for you. — It's dot com 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


What is this lockdown thing and how did it start? NO!!! PLEASE... DON'T SHOOT!!! Tampo (T/C) AND SOMEONE GET THiS FREAKiN CURSOR AWAY FROM ME!!!!!

The lockdown means that anonymous users temporarily can no longer edit the Wiki. Also, no new users can register unless a sysop sets up an account for them. This happened because a vandal bot replaced several pages with the text "N---- STOLE MY COW!" at an extremely fast rate. We couldn't revert its edits and the sysops couldn't block the many usernames it was registering fast enough, so a lockdown was the only way we could stop it. As I understand it, the admins have a plan to end the lockdown soon. I hope that's helpful. Heimstern Läufer 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:Main_Page#NSMC_is_at_it_again. By the way, when Heimstern says the bot "replaced several pages" and the sysops couldn't block the "many usernames," be aware that we're talking about numbers in the thousands, done in a matter of minutes. — It's dot com 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant to say. I just didn't make it very clear. It was really bad. Heimstern Läufer 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Small Changes

Um... Is it just me, or did the text for page diffs just get really small? Usually, when you go to the recent changes and click the "diff" button, the text above (y'know, that appears in green or yellow boxes, and sometimes is red where you added stuff) isn't much smaller than the text on the rest of the page. Now, though, it's very small. I can hardly read it... I have a screenshot of this new version too (although THAT is also small, due to the nature of Photobucket), just to show the differences. It seems odd... Also, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, either. --DorianGray

Whoa. I'm afraid it may actually be just me. The font size has become smaller on other URLs as well... Okay, with this new evidence, anyone know the cause--and better yet, how to fix it? --DorianGray
One cause of small text I've noticed is when the loading is stopped right before it is finished. It's happened to me a few times, but I believe in your case some personal CSS might be in order? I'll see if I can whip something up. — Lapper (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a mouse with a scroll wheel? If so, click on a "diff" link, like this one for example. Hold down Ctrl and move the mouse wheel up, then down. The size of the text should change. Adjust it until it's back to normal, and you're done. Hope this helps! — It's dot com 03:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools