HRWiki talk:What HRWiki is not

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents 1 Purpose 2 Name 3 Soapbox 4 We're a fansite? 5 HRWiki is not a playground 6 fanstuff?

[edit] Purpose

This is a rough draft for a proposed "What HRWiki is not" policy page. (See Da Basement for background.) The idea is to make one page that covers all the rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, etc., that encompass everything that does not belong on HRWiki pages. As this is a rough draft, I doubt it is comprehensive or complete enough to be accepted yet, and therefore any editing or discussion of the page is welcome. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I think "HRW:NOT" should just be its shortcut and not its full name. I think something more verbose like "HRWiki:What this wiki is not" would be more appropriate. Though I'm sure better suggestions can be put forward. --Stux 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't plan to make "HRW:NOT" the official name. That'd be pretty silly. I, and probably the officials I proposed this to, intend the page to be titled "What HRWiki is not", similar to the Wikipedia page I got the idea from. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soapbox

I'm concerned about User:SamFisher1022/HRW:NOT#HRWiki is not a soapbox. I feel it to be a bit unnecessary (à la WP:BEANS) and a bit too legalistic (so no political chit chat is allowed?). We've been lenient with non-disruptive chatter on userpages, and this is pretty much covered by the user and talk page etiquette pages. I'm also trying to make sure this page doesn't sound overly legalistic which is a bit of a concern of mine at this moment. (Especially since I can see it being used in edit summaries, even.) --Stux 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I requested this page was so that the main points of other policy pages, in terms of what not to do, could be collected in one place. I did draw most of the ideas from Wikipedia's page, and the soapbox thing was one of them. But now that you mention it, we don't have many soapbox-like situations (or at least not off-topic ones), and the Beans comment is a good point. That section could go. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really more a Wikipedia thing, where people use both their userpages and articles to push POVs. While it is must certainly true of HRWiki as well, I don't think it's that relevant because our community is so markedly different from Wikipedia's. Heimstern Läufer 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that the section's not necessary, I've gone ahead and removed it. --Stux 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We're a fansite?

No joke, this came as a shock to me. When I think "fansite", I picture a forum-like website where users can freely upload content and talk about stuff. While I understand that "fansite" literally means "a site made for or run by fans", and we more than fit that definition, fan fiction and fan art are key features I imagine, and neither of those are encouraged here. So I thought we avoided calling ourselves a fansite, as it's not our main purpose. The "HRWiki is not a fansite" section has been renamed "a fan fiction site", and while this is true, I think it's too specific and too obvious. The only kind of fansite I think we could be mistaken for is one intended for uploading of art and such, and that's what should be kept under control. The old name should stay, since it keeps the general idea and allows for both art and fiction (and anything else) issues to be addressed. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Like you said: "'fansite' literally means 'a site made for or run by fans'", and fan fiction is what you considered and imagined all fansites to be. Like you also said, the kind of fansite we don't want to be mistaken for "is one intended for uploading of art and such". That describes the fan fiction site. As you can see the distinction may not be entirely obvious, and it would be careless to use any definition other than the correct definition. The previous title would, in fact, promote said confusion, and we want to be clear in what issues we are addressing. --Stux 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's not what I said. Two kinds of sites: art and fiction. A "fansite" as I imagined has both. It's obvious we're not for fan fiction, and art does not relate to that (there is clear distinction, so we could still be mistaken as a site for art). The "and such" does not describe the fiction, it describes other kinds of art like [photos of] sculptures, dioramas, etc. Plain "fansite" is the correct definition because it lets us address all kinds of things. We can be clear on the different "kinds of things" in the text under the heading. That's what it's there for. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say, but you're limiting too much the definition of art. Should we remove Weekly Fanstuff? And what about the rest of the wiki? It documents a work of art called Homestar Runner. To say we prohibit art is too broad. However saying we limit fan art would be more appropriate, but that's already covered in the image policy section of this page and most fan art is also more often than not, considered a subset of fan stuff. --Stux 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. That's still not what I said. Weekly Fanstuff is part of Homestar Runner. Nobody argues that. What I said is people should not use the wiki to upload their own fanstuff. It's allowed within the Image policies, but still discouraged as it's more appropriate at the Fanstuff Wiki. That's all I intend to say about fan art. I don't see fan art rules covered anywhere else on the page, and if they are really a subset of fan stuff, then what better place is there to note it than "not a fansite"? — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever connotations the word fansite has for you personally, we still are one, so we really shouldn't say that we're not. How about we say that we're "not a place for your fanstuff"? — It's dot com 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Something like that sounds good. We should also be sure we explain what we mean by "fanstuff" in the text under the header. W can note that it includes fan fiction, fan art and anything else I may be forgetting. Heimstern Läufer 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The description in the first sentence defines it as "Homestar Runner-related creative work". Does it need to be more specific than that? Often when something gets too specific, people start looking for loopholes. — It's dot com 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, but is that sarcasm? You're asking if it should be more specific, then telling why it shouldn't be.) I like the way it is now because I don't see a way a user could get his work published here without TBC first publishing it there. If there really are loopholes to that, we should make sure the page addresses them, but at the same time I don't think we should be too extreme about it, a la WP:BEANS. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the current definition is good. I think it adequately covers both fan art and fan fiction. Heimstern Läufer 05:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki is not a playground

I've noticed that a growing number of users seem to be using the wiki as a playground, messing around in the sandbox incessantly, creating all manner of quiz games, and being whooly unconstructive in terms of actually adding to the knowledge base. I propose an added section here, which can be linked from the static sandbox text, something like:

While we do encourage a certain light-hearted attitude among our contributors and can appreciate the occasional humorous edit to userspace, sandbox, or elsewhere, any good contributor knows that the vast majority of edits should be constructive and expand the knowledge base in some way, with only a very few edits to userspace or elsewhere to lighten the mood. There are plenty of playground wikis on the internet, Users whose edits are mostly unconstructive may find one of those sites more suited to their style, but such editors are not appreciated here.

Thoughts? — Defender1031*Talk 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts? You guys are being way to serious about this. Like I wrote on the Sandbox, it's OK to let loose once in a while and make non-constructive edits. The wiki should be fun. That's the reason people come here - to have fun, and you just sucked it out of the room. People can have fun putting info into articles, have fun telling about themselves, having fun connecting with the community, and yes, sometimes having fun just plain old having FUN. You can't stop fun. If you do and every little thing is too strictly governed, the users will just leave. This is not work. They don't have to be here.

This whole thing started when a certain user was using the Sandbox too much and clogging the RC when others joined. So instead of banning fun, go to that user's talk page and just politely ask him to stop. Like we always do when users cross the line between having fun, and being annoying and disruptive.

And a personal reply to DeFender: I think you are kinda being hypocritical when you removed links that suggest you have fun once in a while. You never crossed the line, and every one of those links is prove that fun can be had and no one had to have a finger pointed at him. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between cutting loose once in a while, as Deffy did in the old days and as we probably all have from time to time, and spending half your time chatting in the Sandbox, which is what you're getting people doing now (and yes, people, not one person). I'm not cool with the latter, and I'm fully behind the attempts to stop it. Indeed, a talk page note would be a good idea. I was planning to get to that point soon, but a person does have to work and sleep sometimes. Heimstern Läufer 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the first two posts are talking about the same things. The wiki is fun. The kind of fun you, Elcool, are talking about is not the playground DeFender is describing. There's a big difference between steam let off by regular contributors (your kind of fun) and people who come here and edit only their user space and the sandbox, so much that we explicitly mention giving earnest contributors more leeway on the user space guidelines. I've recently edited the guidelines to specifically state that editing only one's user space and the sandbox is discouraged. Maybe that's enough, as opposed to adding another item to this project page. — It's dot com 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have noticed this sooner if not for the netsplits... Anyway, in response to Elcool, i don't think it's hypocritical at all. I removed those links because i'm known as a well-established contributor and the current attitude shown by MANY of our recent contributors has led me to believe that it wasn't a good idea to have links on my page that on the surface look exactly the same. Having all those links in the same place makes it look like I approve of making a series of sandbox fun edits with nothing constructive in between. If you read my edit summary it makes it clear that the attitude of how much fun is fun has changed, and those links were no longer condusive to keeping "fun" fun. Allow me to demonstrate with one of my bogus mathematical theorems. I call it "The Property of Funs." It goes like this: The Fun^itude is directly proportional to the Att^itude of the Fun. Another words, Fun that is not done with the intention of being a part of a larger contribution to the community is scarcely fun at all. — Defender1031*Talk 07:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In some ways, that Bogus Mathematical Theorem nicely sums up the balance that is wanted. Regarding the note, I wonder a bit at the tone, especially at the end, since it sounds more like a stern adult: "Hey, kids, settle down or there will be no pudding!" wbwolf (t | ed) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the things we don't want are actually covered by the sections we already have, particularly the social network section. Instead of a whole new section, I think we could just beef up the existing ones a bit. — It's dot com 15:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As a crafty put-one-toe-out-of-line-past-this-point-'casue-you've-started-too-much-trouble-today-Jellote-or-get-an-embarrasing-warning-that-I-problably-deserved vetran, I think that this is a rule that should be widely enforced. I sadly speak from experience that rules need to be enforced. My ideas: make userspace/chat abuse a bannable punishment. I've made some mistakes in my time (just look [[Talk:Jellote|here]) so I know my way around the rules. By breaking them, people should suffer the consequenes. This is a rule like any other. I floods the recent edits and makes work harder on us. We should treat this like we treat bad test-edits: warning, block warning, temporary bans of increasing size and a perma-ban for those who continue. Spamming is just as bas as trolling and we need to work hard. If we catch anyone in the act of using this wiki soley as a chatroom or facebook, we should punish them like I listed above. Just my opinions. Thanks for your time. (No, whatever you may think this is not an attempt to associate with bigwigs and syopses. I've stopped doing that.)--Jellote wuz here 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] fanstuff?

IF the wiki is NOT a place to post HR fanstuff then where do we post it since the HRFWiki closed all up? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc

Make your own fanstuff wiki? There are plenty of wiki hosting sites. ColdReactive 02:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)