Editing HRWiki talk:Main page redesign

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
Current revision Your text
Line 47: Line 47:
::::I think FAs should be randomised. That way, not only will no two users have the same experience, but it will also inspire people to check out multiple articles and not just one, and it will open the door for new FAs (and by extension, the reopening of [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection|FAS]]<!--note the capital S-->).
::::I think FAs should be randomised. That way, not only will no two users have the same experience, but it will also inspire people to check out multiple articles and not just one, and it will open the door for new FAs (and by extension, the reopening of [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection|FAS]]<!--note the capital S-->).
::::As for the other sections, I reluctantly agree with the social media one (though I still don't think the Wiki should stoop to the level of the vast majority of the Internet). OTD and DYK, oppose. However, if DYK becomes a thing, I think the facts should be written in a way that isn't obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact. I've had similar issues with another Wiki's DYK section. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::As for the other sections, I reluctantly agree with the social media one (though I still don't think the Wiki should stoop to the level of the vast majority of the Internet). OTD and DYK, oppose. However, if DYK becomes a thing, I think the facts should be written in a way that isn't obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact. I've had similar issues with another Wiki's DYK section. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
-
:::::(edit conflict'd) I agree with RickTommy about randomizing the FAs for the time being rather than showing one for a period of time. I still think we should have gone to monthly FAs starting in 2013, but that's neither here nor there. As for the other two things on that side, I don't really like the Did You Know section. I like the looks of On This Day though, but I think it would be cleaner to have it pull from an organized file folder of some kind rather than a massive list of everything. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Not the keenest on randomizing FAs. If we're going to use the old writeups, we run into the problem of them being out of date. I'm skeptical that our current user base is ready to handle the cleanup required on these old articles, particularly if they're going to be randomized (meaning the whole cleanup project must be complete on day 1). As for bringing back FAS, just no. We closed that down for good reason: the process was being monopolized and disrupted, and we just don't have an active enough user (and sysop) base to absorb that problem (nor to have good discussions). I used to spend a considerable length of time on it weekly; I will no longer be able to do this thanks to [[Edgar's Baby's Daddy|certain changes in my personal life]]. And as I don't see any other sysops stepping up to do it instead, bringing back FAS is unworkable. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 
:::::Weekly FAs will bring the wiki back to the good ol' days, when we could wake up one morning and look forward to a brand new article adorning the front page. If it's a different random article every time, it would kind of... lose the magic, so to speak. Seeing new featured articles would be taken for granted, and it just wouldn't be special anymore. As for your reasoning (no two users would have the same experience), I'd say that's why I ''wouldn't'' want randomized articles. If it was weekly, users could discuss and view the current article together, instead of everyone always looking at something different. Users can say their opinion on the current article and point out mistakes should be fixed or updated, etc. Or, for that matter, even say "current article" instead of "one of the articles that I saw just now". As for "checking out multiple articles instead of just one", weekly FAs will do the same thing, but slower. And I think there's a chance that weekly articles will open FAS again, just as much as randomized would, if not more. In general, I think random FAs would be less organized and convenient. Maybe we could compromise with a rerun every day...? Maybe? (Also, what's wrong with OTD and DYK? And could you give an example of what you mean by not obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact?) {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Weekly FAs will bring the wiki back to the good ol' days, when we could wake up one morning and look forward to a brand new article adorning the front page. If it's a different random article every time, it would kind of... lose the magic, so to speak. Seeing new featured articles would be taken for granted, and it just wouldn't be special anymore. As for your reasoning (no two users would have the same experience), I'd say that's why I ''wouldn't'' want randomized articles. If it was weekly, users could discuss and view the current article together, instead of everyone always looking at something different. Users can say their opinion on the current article and point out mistakes should be fixed or updated, etc. Or, for that matter, even say "current article" instead of "one of the articles that I saw just now". As for "checking out multiple articles instead of just one", weekly FAs will do the same thing, but slower. And I think there's a chance that weekly articles will open FAS again, just as much as randomized would, if not more. In general, I think random FAs would be less organized and convenient. Maybe we could compromise with a rerun every day...? Maybe? (Also, what's wrong with OTD and DYK? And could you give an example of what you mean by not obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact?) {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 +
::::::I agree with RickTommy about randomizing the FAs for the time being rather than showing one for a period of time. I still think we should have gone to monthly FAs starting in 2013, but that's neither here nor there. As for the other two things on that side, I don't really like the Did You Know section. I like the looks of On This Day though, but I think it would be cleaner to have it pull from an organized file folder of some kind rather than a massive list of everything. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 +
:::::::Not the keenest on randomizing FAs. If we're going to use the old writeups, we run into the problem of them being out of date. I'm skeptical that our current user base is ready to handle the cleanup required on these old articles, particularly if they're going to be randomized (meaning the whole cleanup project must be complete on day 1). As for bringing back FAS, just no. We closed that down for good reason: the process was being monopolized and disrupted, and we just don't have an active enough user (and sysop) base to absorb that problem (nor to have good discussions). I used to spend a considerable length of time on it weekly; I will no longer be able to do this thanks to [[Edgar's Baby's Daddy|certain changes in my personal life]]. And as I don't see any other sysops stepping up to do it instead, bringing back FAS is unworkable. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::I don't see anything really wrong with Did You Know; I'm sure we could find enough interesting facts to fill it up with (commentaries, secret pages, etc). And it seems to fit on the page with everything else. But I'll go whichever way consensus leans. Same for the featured articles. Anyway, I kinda like the images, and I still support On This Day. {{User:SRMX12/sig}} 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::I don't see anything really wrong with Did You Know; I'm sure we could find enough interesting facts to fill it up with (commentaries, secret pages, etc). And it seems to fit on the page with everything else. But I'll go whichever way consensus leans. Same for the featured articles. Anyway, I kinda like the images, and I still support On This Day. {{User:SRMX12/sig}} 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::What Heimstern said. Cleaning up all the featured articles at once would be a daunting task. Also, I think Did You Know is a good way to show visitors how much interesting information we have on our wiki, while On This Day is simply a cool and interesting thing to read. I agree with Knights that an organized file folder would be better than a long list, but I'm not sure how that would be done. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::What Heimstern said. Cleaning up all the featured articles at once would be a daunting task. Also, I think Did You Know is a good way to show visitors how much interesting information we have on our wiki, while On This Day is simply a cool and interesting thing to read. I agree with Knights that an organized file folder would be better than a long list, but I'm not sure how that would be done. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your changes will be visible immediately. If you would like to test or practice editing, please do so in the sandbox. You are encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles; however, bad edits to articles are watched for and will be quickly removed.


CAPTCHA Image
Image Code:
Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
You are required to enter a code from an image in order to perform certain operations. This image is designed to protect the site from vandalism. If the images are too obscured to read, just give it your best shot and a new image will be shown next time. If you are visually impaired or limited to text-based browsing, you can contact the site administrator and something can be arranged. The code is not case-sensitive.

The Homestar Runner Wiki is neither owned by nor affiliated with homestarrunner.com. Much of the material presented here is copyrighted by The Brothers Chaps and/or Harmless Junk, Inc. For more information, see the legal stuff page on the official Homestar Runner website. The proprietor of this site asserts that publication of such material on the wiki qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Material on this site that is not copyrighted by The Brothers Chaps (e.g. opinions and mindless chatter) is licensed to the various authors, where indicated, and is released under a Creative Commons Deed, which simply ensures that none of this information may legally be used for commercial purposes.

Personal tools