Talk:Main Page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

usually takes me 3 or 4 tries to get it right. Very annoying. 66.168.31.12 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, if you create an account you won't need to bother with the CAPTCHA to edit. Registering a free account takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits. -- Tom 14:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. While I consider your solution, let me ask you to also consider my solution: get some easier CAPTCHAs, it will make it easier for anonymous editors. Simply put, I don't edit this site regularly enough to want an account, and 3 out of 4 times, I give up on my edits because of the CAPTCHA. 66.168.31.12 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you are not tenacious enough. The captcha is not especially easy to read (that's the point, after all), but it's not especially difficult either; I just loaded several dozen of them, and I was able to guess the code correctly better than 9 out of every 10 times. Besides, even if you only edit once every six months, that's still enough to get an account. Making an account (and, later, logging in) takes no time at all. — It's dot com 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well congratulations on your superior CAPTCHA reading abilities. Maybe you should switch to anonymous editing. As for me, sometimes I have to do three or four tries for a single edit. Maybe it's because I'm not actually a person, but rather a spambot who thinks he's a person. 66.168.31.12 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you spending so much time trying to figure out CAPTCHAs when it takes a few seconds to register an account? Homestar Coder 17:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What's this The Incident? There was a The Incident? Where was I? Vol Chem, 1^st Tile of Ical 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NSMC. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Something Wrong?

When I go to the wiki homepage and mouse over my name, all those little prefrences and things go to the other side. — Dactyl22 (Talk | contribs) 02:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (left unsigned)

I used to have it when i used IE6, it only happened half the time for me though. Maximizing your window helps, or if you want you can get firefox. It's your choice. - Volbeat A The Cheat 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

monobook.js and monobook.css

What are they? And what are they for? ApocalypX

See Meta → Help:User style. — It's dot com 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

H*R for lazy people!

I don't want to have to check the hrwiki.org front page for Homestar Runner site updates. I want the SITE to contact ME. I want to subscribe to a Homestar Runner mailing list, so that I get emailed every time there's a new cartoon, email or game. Somebody start doing this please and I'll definately sign up! --_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We are a knowledge base, not a message service. Heimstern Läufer 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to my understanding, the main H*R site used to do just that. Not anymore though, since for a very long time they were updating essentially weekly. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 22:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they did do that. I received their last update before they gave it up. Heimstern Läufer 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What about using an RSS feed? This one polls the official site for updates, or you could subscribe to this one which polls the H*R.com updates 2006 article for updates. --ENUSY 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

what going to happen?

Because Homestar runner wiki didn't reach its donation goal, whats going to happen to it?

Nikolce Kocovski 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

<pouf!> It's gone! Actually, we're only like $25 away. Can you help? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean its like deleted?--H*bad 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

CHURCH: {sighs} Yes. The HRWiki is deleted. —AbdiViklas 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And the fanstuff?--H*bad 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually have a dictionary without the word "gullible". No, the wiki and the fanstuff wiki are in no IMMEDIATE risk of deltaco. But $25 short can mean the difference between meeting a monthly payment and failing to. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then donate. I can't lose this wiki. I have gotten so many more friends on here. And I am sure so have som others.--H*bad 03:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, even if that's what you're thinking in your head, you really shouldn't post that in this thread. It's a very selfish way to put it and disrespects those who actually do donate. I understand that your situation is probably such that you are not in a position to donate, but nevertheless that's how you come across. — It's dot com 03:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I redid it.

As it turns out, there were some donation stragglers, and we did end up meeting our goal. High fives! — It's dot com 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How, much did we go over?--H*bad 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A technical poem

On the main page boxes,where the recent updates and stuff art how'd they get the pics of the characters on em?

You just know there's dozens of people still out there who are going to ask sooner or later, regardless. --VolatileChemical 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The CSS code on Monobook.css reads:

 .MainPageWhatsNewBox, .MainPageWikiStuffBox {
    background: url(/skins/common/images/strongbad-background.gif);
    background-repeat: no-repeat;
    background-position: bottom right;
 }

New main page style

I tweaked the main page design. There seemed to be a pretty strong consensus that the pink and baby blue were due for a change. Tell what U think about the new design. — It's dot com 04:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Slick! —FireBird|Talk 04:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice new style as we progress and change. —BazookaJoe 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really, really nice. o_o I keep goin' back to look at it. Every time I look at it, I can't believe how awesome it is. It's just plain amazing. --DorianGray

Very nice! Me liky. How about a section on HRWiki:A History about the design changes? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Shiny! I like how Strong Bad is popping in like the side, as if he's saying "Hey, don't forget to get me too!" - Joshua 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't like it. I dunno. Looks like its trying to be all futuristic and such. It just doesn't seem like the Wiki's style. Codejkoolguy 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

just kinda... shiney and such.

I like it, but I don't like the gray backgrounds and the poster-SB/Homestar. Salty^Talk! 05:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I like it pretty well. Though it is a just teeny bit too, umm, modern (for lack of a better word). But it's still pretty good, says I. Heimstern Läufer 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Too modern? That's un-possible. I say we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom! — It's dot com 05:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Concept is good, but Homestar image is too hard to make out. SB is OK, but I wonder if there more text if that would be so. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  05:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I love the bars, but I'd like the slightly red and blue backgrounds for the tables to return- maybe in less pinky and baby blue colors. The Homestar is obscured as well, but overall, it's very stylish. Trelawney 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Qermaq: We had the same spacing problems with the old design, depending on the size of your browser window. I didn't attempt to even address that. This design is simply to move away from the pastel colors. — It's dot com 05:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, spacing wasn't a problem here. Just the overall look is less in-your-face than it could be, more subtle than optimal. Mind you, a little red/blue wasn't so bad. A touch of those colors in the background might tie the whole page together better. But the images should be a little more bold. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  05:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented both of those suggestions. Remember, though, that subtle is good... we still have to be able to read text over the images. — It's dot com 06:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As is, the background might be a little too bold. Is there a middle ground? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  06:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I went back to the gray on the left. The red was just a little much and made Homestar look kinda weird, and if we go to a lighter red then we're right back to pink. I think the gray helps him stand out a little, and I really like the blue on the right and how Strong Bad looks against it. I also reduced the size of the characters to match what we had before. — It's dot com 06:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I love it! Do you think we should change the HRWiki:The Stick background as well? --Dacheatbot · Communicate 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

More of an artistic comment than a technical one, but I have a problem with the contrast of the main page style with the rest of the style. Basically, the reason that I liked the old style was that it's cartoony and soft-colors blended well with the rest of the site's design. I think that if the main page were just viewed alone, it would look very good. However, if we want to continue with a "modern metal" style, I think that we'd need a new background and a logo redesign, because the rest of the site is still very cartoony looking. -AtionSong 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the contrast. The two three color bars seem really "in your face." Sure, it's cool to use gradients once in awhile, but these particular ones are very sharp colors that just jump out at you in an unwarranted sort of way. Maybe fade them a little bit. --Soapergem • • 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. They look awesome, but they just don't fit with the rest oif the wiki. --Ju Ju Master 15:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you put into it Dot com, it looks awsome. The bars do kind of stand out in relation to the rest of the page though, what about instead of fading from red/blue to black, what about fading to the background of the page? I'm not sure how that would look, but I'll just throw that out there. But it does look pretty darn snazzy. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty slick, though I think I liked the old one better. Is there a way to keep it available?— Bassbone (^{TALK CONT}) 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You can override the CSS code. Copy the contents of User:AndrewNeo/monobook.css into yours (User:Bassbone/monobook.css) and it should look more-correct. I liked the older one better, too. --AndrewNeo 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people are making the comments that it looks slick, snazzy, sharp, modern, and so on. This is 100-percent intentional. I strongly believe that the main page should be as interesting as possible, and with all due respect to the designer of the previous version, I have for a long time found it to be too flat, too cutesy. This is a site about a cartoon, but that doesn't mean we have to be strictly cartoony. My Simpsons quote above ("forward, not backward...") was kind of silly, but I meant it. We should be doing everything to keep this site as up-to-date as possible. It's the first thing people see. As for whether it fits with the rest of the site, I think hardly any the rest of the site is or has been affected by what the main page looks like, and this one fits in as well as the previous one. But if updating the main page means we should update some other pages, then so be it (although I don't see the need for this). The other item that we should look at is whether we should update the logo (and I don't think the two suggestions based on the official H*R logo and Wikipedia's logo are viable candidates, simply because they are based on others' official logos). Last (this reply turned out to be a novel), look closely: the chrome effect does not fade to black, just a dark color. — It's dot com 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't using slick as a perjorative. I just meant it looked slick and well-done. I like it. I just am used to the old one. I am a man set in his ways, so change happens to me slowly. But good work overall.— Bassbone (^{TALK CONT}) 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff, I like it. — 71.131.249.78 (Talk | contribs) (left unsigned)

PWN-erific! --Dongolev 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly was "PWN"ed here?— Bassbone (^{TALK CONT}) 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The old style? --DorianGray

As I mentioned in the forum, the chrome effect (whether it's a fade to black or just fade-to-darker isn't relevant—we're all talking about the same thing) is a step back to the Clinton-era web design, not a step forward. I really appreciate the effort you put into this, It's dot com, and it's pretty clear that other aspects of the design are very popular, but you seem to be taking critiques of this one particular feature personally, which isn't helping to move this process forward. Why not try a few other things with it and see how people like them? When you're working for a client (and sure you're not getting paid, but you still have a client—the HRWiki community) design is an iterative process with lots of push and pull, and I think we have a few more iterations to go before we'll have somethinge everyone is happy with. — InterruptorJones 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) (Edit 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Dot com, I have to agree with Jones here some. Personally, I like the new look compared to the old. However, I know that I don't hang out here as much as some of our other users, and so my opinion doesn't mean much. This is a wiki, everyone's opinion matters equally. I also happen to feel that if there is an alternative to using this style (as in, using your own monobook.css), then it really doesn't matter what the front page is :). In short, I like it, but if you still have more creative juice in those fingers of yours I wouldn't mind seeing what else you can come up with. — Stu My Talk19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although "pink" and "baby blue" weren't exactly the greatest colors in the opinion of many, I feel that this design is a bit... robotic. If anything, I'd rather we turn to Wikipedia's Main Page design, than these harsh, metallic gradients. — Lapper (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you reverting to the old style by manually changing your monobook.css file to reflect the contents of User:AndrewNeo/monobook.css, take a look at my version real quick, Andrew missed a couple of borders. Obviously you don't need to copy the very first item in mine, which changes the logo, but I quickly patched up everything else in mine. --Soapergem • • 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't look very hard for what had changed. --AndrewNeo 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Although using my monobook its red and green. So I guess it doesn't matter how it looks.--H*bad 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, no. The big ugly gradients stand out way to much; they look totally out of place. Put it back. Qduk 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The main page looks pretty good.--H*bad 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It suits the H*R theme perfectly I think. --josh 21:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I love the new design. It's wonderful, although I can barely see the Homestar and Strong Bad backgrounds on my monitor. — Kilroy / talk 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

InterruptorJones: As I said on the forum (it really is dumb that we have two threads about this), I'm perfectly willing to compromise and have already. There's really no reason to suggest otherwise. I'm working on softening the chrome. To those scrambling to edit their personal CSS: I would wait a little bit, first because you may start to like the new design, and second because this is a work in progress and the specifications are likely to change for a little while. — It's dot com 23:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the two threads are dumb, so I'll stick to this page from now on. The reason it seemed you were unwilling to compromise is because when I expressed my opinion about the chrome bars (which I admit I did not do in the best way, though I stand by my opinion) you didn't say "Okay, I'll consider your opinion and that of others and come up with some revisions." Rather, you pointed out that they don't fade to black at all and then said "I'm afraid I have to disagree with you completely there. All the coolest Firefox, Windows, and other skins have gone to a that effect, and the one I used on the main page was based on one I found that was only introduced this year. This is an up-to-date design," which, possibly despite your intentions, came off reading a lot like "You're wrong and there's nothing wrong with my design and I'm not gonna change it." Anyway, I'm glad you're making revisions and I'm eager to see them. — InterruptorJones 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see where the confusion was. (For those following along, at the time I was replying to a post where Jones had just said that chrome was popular in 1998 but not now.) This is what I meant to say: "It's fine if you don't like the chrome, and we're still tweaking the design, but don't discount it simply because it seems retro to you, because I actually see the chrome in a lot of recent designs." That's all. — It's dot com 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I like the chrome myself. It looks cool, if you ask me. And sure it stands out, but that's what headers are supposed to do. And it isn't eye-searing. - Joshua 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, I come home to the wiki, and bam, I see an awesome Main Page. Sweet new style. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 01:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The only words that I can use to describe this new modern Main Page are: "Awesome, awesome fancy danish." That's some nice designing, It's dot com. – The Chort 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I dramatically softened the chrome. I don't like it as much, but I like it fine. I also enhanced the pictures of Homestar and Strong Bad, because I noticed that they're not as visible on my lappy as on my compy (now hopefully they're not too dark on the compy, which isn't where I am). — It's dot com 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... the background color seems to get cut off a little before reaching the top, and I don't like the lack of border. Besides that it's fine with me. - Joshua 04:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You've softened it. I like it. Looks good. --Soapergem • • 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no complaints. It looks really good now. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've liked it from the beginning, and it looks extra-special-cool now. It takes awexome to new levels. The way it is right now is my most favourite design of it. --DorianGray

Joshua: You may need to do a hard refresh. It should be a smooth transition of color. — It's dot com 05:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the gradients. At all. Whatsoever. They look far too "inexperienced Flash user" to me. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Dot com, this is awesome. You've truly outdone yourself. I think that the headers are perfectly fine, and that they shouldn't be lightened anymore. However, I think that the background should be changed to a lighter grey, as we can then see Homestar better. Other than that, I love this format, and I'm glad to get rid of the pastels. — Seriously ^(Talk) 19:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah: Dot com, is there any way for you to show me what the headers used to look like? — Seriously ^(Talk) 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link at the very top of this thread for the archived main page. The background you mention is a little tricky, because not all monitors are calibrated the same. Depending on your settings, it could either look too dark or too light, and so I aimed for a middle-of-the-road setting that would look acceptable, if not necessarily perfect, on most people's screens. — It's dot com 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal problem with the backgrounds, but I'd much prefer solid-color headers, as with Wikipedia, Wikinews, et al. In fact, I can't actually find another Wiki that even uses gradients, much less makes them look good. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Maybe 'cause they haven't tried. At this point, I think enough people are good with this design that we're gonna go with it for a while. I myself did try using flat versions of the colors, and while they look passable, they seem to be missing that little something extra. You can always edit your personal CSS, though. I recommend #C90C00 (red) and #3470B9 (blue) if you want the colors to match. — It's dot com 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it, especially the blue side. Good job --Garfunkel 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects looking funny again

TotalSpaceshipGuy3's sig is listed as a double redirect to about ten different pages, and the various rejected titles of Homestar Runner and Strong Bad's Relationship show up as well. None of the double redirects it mentions actually double redirect. Something's up — again. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was up, but it's all clear now. — Lapper (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had this awesome idea

Maybe the wiki could have a myspace! I'll make it if anything. -EveryoneLovesStevenRight?

Sorry, but I think that's a bad idea. One of the best things about a wiki is that all of the biographical and informational articles are contained right within the wiki itself. Extrawiki pages, like the Frappr group, are interesting but ultimately unofficial. In a worst-case scenerio, a MySpace could be dangerous because its unmonitored nature is inviting to Internet predators and we have enough young users who might not know how to protect themselves. — It's dot com 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)