Talk:Main Page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 00:49, 22 February 2009

TVTropes?

Not sure the best place to put this, so I'll put it here.... since H*R deals with a lot of parodies and references to various TV tropes, could it be possible to have a quick link to TVTropes? That might help cut down on the "this reference could refer to this or this or that. wbwolf (t | ed) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We currently have no articles that have any links to TVTropes.org, so a quick link to it would be pretty useless. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's... not true... — Defender1031*Talk 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. But where are they? Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All over the place... i'd do a search, but google doesn't search the wiki code and the wiki search is ignoring "tvtropes" for some reason... The most recent one is a link put on Hremail 2000. — Defender1031*Talk 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I also just had done a search with Google to see if there were any links. That's why I thought there weren't any. Homestar-Winner (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of TVTropes due to fact it's nothing more than "an organized forum for people to shout out their ideas all at the same time". If it was actually organised, correctly formatted and thus readable, things would be different. I feel it would be more beneficial if we could find an alternative, well-written article about the relevant trope somewhere on the Internet, or even a Wikipedia article, if possible. – The Chort 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hremails

Instead of putting Short for these hremails, Can we actually put, like "Hremail: Hremail 2000"?

"HREmail" isn't actually a category of toons as of yet, though. --DorianGray 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a short either... — Defender1031*Talk 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They're uncategorized, and there's no reason for us to categorize them until TBC have done so as well. At the moment, they just reside in the New Stuff menu. —Guard Duck ^talk 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So why on the main page does it list them as shorts? — Defender1031*Talk 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we at least have some kind of navigation between the hremails? Yes, they're not categorized, but they are obviously related. --Son 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Crudely Drawn Cupcake 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They are categorized on HSR.com, if you look under the toons menu, under new stuff, they have a little icon next to them that says "HSE" which stands for Homestar Email? Since the SBEmails have "SBE" next to them? Maybe? Dunno... --WillowDrake 5:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not categorized. all toons have three characters next to them like that. Categorized means put into one of the toon categories. — Defender1031*Talk 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that there's a handful of Hremails, I think it's reasonable if only for our own convenience to group them all together. Which is why I did so a couple of days ago. — It's dot com 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature pictures

How do I put one of those pictures when I sign things?--Mariofan1000 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For that, you'll need a signature. Please check Help:Signature for how to create one, but make sure it follows the guidelines. --DorianGray 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Former Featured Articles

In wake of the fact that Fourth Wall Breaks and Nintendo need cleanup and Date Nite's Commentary Transcript has been left incomplete for nearly 2 years now, should I make a template and a category for Featured Articles that no longer deserve such titles? I already have some gewd ideas for template pictures. BBG 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I'd say no. Once featured, always featured. But to get a better idea, you should elaborate on what the wording of the template would be and what image we should use. — It's dot com 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording would basically explain that the article needs improvement before it can once again "highlight the fine work of the Wiki", and the picture would be the pumpkin pie (unless the "worst" ribbon is too harsh, then it will be Strong Sad's Self Portrait in Late October). If that's too similar to the cleanup template, it could be invisible like {{no-image}}. I just think we need to separate articles that no longer highlight our fine work from those that do. BBG 18:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Like, cough cough, history according to strong bad? -132.183.138.34 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not very clear to me what's wrong with that article. BBG 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles here are not like those at Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, saying an article is featured means it's considered one of the encyclopedia's finest articles, and therefore those that fall below this standard end up getting de-featured. Here, it just means we thought it was cool enough to put on the Main Page. There's no need to consider an article de-featured here. Heimstern Läufer 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, lack of a commentary transcript is not enough to deprive an article of its awesomeness. — Defender1031*Talk 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why...

I've always wanted to ask this, but why do we spend hours a day working on improving articles when almost 10% actually read the articles?? I guess it's good for something like a youtube video or something like that but is there some wiki inspector that comes along some time in 2009 that we're preparing for? Or is this all just for fun? Just asking. — MichaelXX2 21:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ten percent of what? A far greater number of people read the articles than edit them, and even longtime editors still read articles for enjoyment. I myself read the 4 Gregs article just yesterday and learned some very interesting tidbits. The bigger answer lies in the answer to "Why does one climb a mountain?" Because it's there and it's fun and challenging to do well. — It's dot com 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask not what the wiki can do for you, but what you can do for the wiki. —Guard Duck ^talk 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo

but it isn't always clear whether or not the Dennis mentioned is reffering to the same Dennis in Thy Dungeonman. 'Refferring' should be spelled 'referring.'

Fixed. Thanks. =) --DorianGray 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to be bold and have fun? Or was that changed to cower down to the sysops and beg not to be blocked? =3 — MichaelXX2 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the featured article template is semi-protected, after all... Anonny: For future reference, if you create an account (and wait a day or so to be autoconfirmed), you'd be able to edit the FA writeup yourself, and fix any typos... --phlip ^T_C 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The annony was referring to the actual page, which is not semi-protected. — MichaelXX2 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The relevant wording from the featured write-up is identical to the sentence in the article itself. There's no way to know for sure which one he meant, but it's more likely that he was intending the more visible and difficult to edit featured blurb. — It's dot com 22:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bots

If a regular user like me was skilled enough to have a bot and it was only used for good, will it be blocked? --Fangoriously 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be blocked. See HRWiki:Blocking_Policy#Bots Loafing 03:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would a good bot that works be blocked? --Fangoriously! Chat 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)