HRWiki talk:Glossary

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 01:07, 19 February 2009 by Homestar-Winner (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Wiki terms, or HRWiki

Is this for all wiki terms, just us, or both?--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Both. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay.--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defining

I am trying to define some of these but I cannot accurately define these. Can someone try to help with this? Rogue Leader / (my talk) 04:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying too, but I have the same problem.-- minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk·contribs) 04:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added 1/4-1/2 of the content. The rest I am having trouble with. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
We have to be EXTREMELY careful. I just got an edit conflict, and on this page it takes a long time to restore edits. Lets try to divide this among some people. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 04:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I know. We were both trying to define the exact same thing, but you got there first. I'm also being a little careless in hopes of not getting an edit conflict.--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Make sure to keep it a down (lowercase) style unless it's a proper noun. And please keep definitions concise. — It's dot com 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Nomer 2005

Why is troll "techinically a misnomer"? Does it just mean that they're not actually hairy green monsters, or is there something I'm not getting? —AbdiViklas 05:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Although we do have some bona fide trolls, usually we should be using the broader term vandal. See Wikipedia:Internet troll. — It's dot com 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Well a troll would be someone who makes big changes that hurt the wiki and a gnome is the opposite. They make small changes that help the wiki.--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 13:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
A troll is someone who edits and maks comments specifically to get us angry (usually trying to get us defensive) - these people get off of making others mad. A vandal on the other hand does it because it's destructive. Similar effects, but a different motivation. NSMC and WoW for example are vandals, but the people who edit with things like "you have no life" would be (unsuccessful) trolls. --phlip TC 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
A true troll is someone who, like Vizzini, goes about trying to start wars (flamewars in particular). It seems to me they'd be more successful on a forum than here. —AbdiViklas 15:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Abdi, you have a truly dizzying intellect! ;) --Stux 06:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow.. just wow,

(Not Willy on Wheels...) Last night (Or the night before) I told Dot Com and some other people about this idea that I have about this page. I go to sleep, wake up in the morning, and what is the first thing that I hear? Dot Com telling me about this new page! This is just, so.. Awesome. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Amazing how quickly things get done 'round here, ain't it? Our wiki is an amazing place. --DorianGray

[edit] Meh! Meh.

Man, I just got my larnin' for the day. When used around here, I had often assumed "meh" to reference Cheat-talk. Personally, I use it that way out loud on a regular basis (said in appropriate Cheat tones to express surprise, irritation, or apathy). But I remembered encountering other non-H*R friends using it, and wondered about the derivation. This page is full of people wondering the same thing; despite many appearances on the Simpsons, one of the earliest leads seems to point to a 1992 usenet posting. By far the most entertaining take on it was the Gospels of MEH, which may actually be the ultimate source, claiming to date back to 1987. In between the purple-and-pink frisbees and the gurus who eat the insides of peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches first, you actually do pick up something of the gestalt of the word. —AbdiViklas 02:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Variations

Jay recently went through and changes "Also known as" to "Variations" in the Character pages. While I don't have an issue with it, it does lead to a question: do we have a formal definition of what is a variation? a nickname? a costume? etc.? And should that def (or those defs) be listed here? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 11:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. "Also know as" wasn't just limited to the individual Main Character pages. It's also used on Characters#Also known as... and Marshie#Also known as.... We already use the term "Variations" when referring to all the things contained in Category:Character Variations, which does contain some of the "Also known as" stuff. -- Tom 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I honestly think a formal definition of it is a good idea. I see many fights occuring on talk pages, and feel that a fight may erupt about whether a certain character is a variation or not. Perfect example: Stlunko/Visor Robot- character variation, or not? Most say no, but some say yes. And who knows what the future holds? Bluebry 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal names as part of the glossary?

I suggest we remove the specific vandal name listed under W for these reasons: a) the vandal is no longer relevant to our wiki and his name is definitely not part of our everyday vocabulary, and b) no vandal deserves to be officially recognised as important enough to be part of our glossary. Loafing 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree — I could see the argument for including prominent vandals on this page if their attacks were a current threat that users would need to be aware of to effectively deal with in everyday life, but it's been quite some time since any vandals have launched large-scale, effective disruptions to the wiki. It's just not an important issue for the wiki at large these days. Any important information is now archived in HRWiki:A History. Trey56 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
One counterargument is that new users who inadvertantly choose a username similar to a vandal's username can be referred to this entry. Of course, they can also be referred to HRWiki:A History, so that's not essential. I strongly agree with point 2 in that terms not germane to the everyday HRWiki experiance should not be listed. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me likey! Me likey!

Yes, I like rock opera (sbemail 125), but can I call annonies "anons"? I like that term better. --Fangoriously 01:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can call them whatever you'd like, as long as it's not offensive and the anons understand why you are calling them that. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools