Talk:Main Page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by (Talk); changed back to last version by The Chort)
(Fanstuff Wiki Forum)
Line 103: Line 103:
:::I'm sure we could do without the word "email" being before every SBEmail title, but since so many articles currently have the word on them, it would be easier to just not do anything about it than to change every article. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm sure we could do without the word "email" being before every SBEmail title, but since so many articles currently have the word on them, it would be easier to just not do anything about it than to change every article. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I always thought we had "Email" before each name because it doesn't have any captial letters so it doesn't look like a normal toon title. {{User:The Chort/sig}} 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I always thought we had "Email" before each name because it doesn't have any captial letters so it doesn't look like a normal toon title. {{User:The Chort/sig}} 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
== Fanstuff Wiki Forum ==
Where is it? [[Special:Contributions/|]] 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:26, 10 March 2009

Main Page Talk

1 (1-20)
2 (21-40)
3 (41-60)
4 (61-80)
5 (81-100)
6 (101-120)
7 (121-140)
8 (141-160)
9 (161-180)
10 (181-200)
11 (201-220)
12 (221-240)
13 (241-260)
14 (261-280)
15 (281-300)
16 (301-320)
17 (321-340)
18 (341-360)
19 (361-380)
20 (381-400)
21 (401-420)
22 (421-440)
23 (441-460)

24 (461-480)
25 (481-500)
26 (501-520)
27 (521-540)
28 (541-560)
29 (561-580)
30 (581-600)
31 (601-620)
32 (621-640)
33 (641-660)
34 (661-680)
35 (681-700)
36 (701-720)
37 (721-740)
38 (741-760)
39 (761-780)
40 (781-800)
41 (801-820)
42 (821-840)
43 (841-860)
44 (861-880)
45 (881-900)
46 (901-920)



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, 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)


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, 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? - 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)


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 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 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)


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 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 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 TC 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The annony was referring to the actual page, which is not semi-protected. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 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)


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)
Because that's what we have users for.-Record307 Talk/Contribs 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Or, if we really do need the services of a bot, it's why we have developer-controlled bots. We actually have one bot, First Time Here?, that comes into play just about every day. Out of curiosity, what do you think we need a bot to do? — It's dot com 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's also The Cheatbot, which does sophisticated Gnome work so that the wiki worked more smoothly. However, it has not been active since 2 June 2008. I wonder why? – The Chort 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of my own bot. The Cheatbot is active only when duty calls, and currently there are no pending approved projects. — It's dot com 15:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tandy game

What did the "Tandy game" page look like before it was baleeted? --FangoriouslyFotoshopStar.png 17:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

1.14 Upgrade?

I've noticed that MediaWiki 1.14 (non-rc) has been out for three days now, and it seems that we haven't upgraded. Just a note. -- 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Three days? Wow, that would be extremely ambitious considering all of the customizations we make to the software, not to mention the fact that we developers have day jobs. Ever since we began doing upgrades the way we currently do, our record for upgrading after an official release is just under two weeks, set back when 1.8 was released. In all other cases it's taken us around two or three months (and that's not even counting the fact that we completely skipped 1.7, 1.10, and 1.13). With each upgrade, I have refined the process so that I have less to do each time (for example, by moving things out of the core code and into hooks, or by submitting a patch so that a custom feature or fix becomes standard), but some things are just intricate and have to be done manually (like autopipe). I had been making preparations in advance of the official 1.14 release, so hopefully it won't take too long, but just in case you weren't planning on keeping your pants on, I'd advise you do so. — It's dot com 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New Page Suggestion

Hey, is there/should there be a page listing all the times that Characters imitate other Characters? Like Strong Bad imitating Homestar on Marzipan's answering machine, Homestar imitating The Cheat in Do Over, etc. etc. What do you think? (I know about the "be bold" thing, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask someone else's opinion =P) And, for future reference, is this where suggestions for new pages are supposed to be made? If not, where? ~ Branewashed 12:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A page like Impersonations of Other Characters? Which we've had for 3 years? And there isn't really a set place for new page suggestions... this is probably as good a place as any. — Defender1031*Talk 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, yes, a page exactly like that...Yeah. Sorry 'bout that. Ok, so this can be ignored. =P Thanks! ~ Branewashed 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, glad i could help. — Defender1031*Talk 12:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Are emoticons unique enough to deserve their own page? Off the top of my head I can think of Teen Girl Squad Issue 12, original, and Hremail 62 as examples. —Guard Duck talk 03:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-linking image

How the crap is this possible?

As you can see, this particular image links to itself on its "links" section. Why/how does it do that? MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 02:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's because of the {{notorphan}} template. --DorianGray 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
But how? MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's why: The template has the following code: <includeonly><span style="display:none">[[Media:{{PAGENAME}}]] <!-- to take the image off [[Special:Unusedimages]] --></span></includeonly>. It's a hidden link back to the image itself so that it doesn't show up in Special:Unusedimages. --Stux 03:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to put "email" in front of every Strong Bad email name on pages with bulleted lists? Like when it says "Email crying" on the Li'l Brudder page. --FangoriouslyFotoshopStar.png 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. — Defender1031*Talk 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? --FangoriouslyFotoshopStar.png 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure we could do without the word "email" being before every SBEmail title, but since so many articles currently have the word on them, it would be easier to just not do anything about it than to change every article. Homestar-Winner (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I always thought we had "Email" before each name because it doesn't have any captial letters so it doesn't look like a normal toon title. – The Chort 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fanstuff Wiki Forum

Where is it? 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools