Talk:Main Page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 16:22, 14 September 2015 by (Talk)
Jump to: navigation, search
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)


No Turning Back Now

Do you guys think that there are enough toons to warrant a "Toons without Back Buttons" page? It's become a recent trend with TBC lately. - Catjaz63 20:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Additional Stuff without the back button:
Telebision Toons Menu
Email the chair
I think there's enough. - Catjaz63 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
So, it looks like this idea is good enough to warrant its own. However, what's the best name for the page without being too long? There are longer page names than "Toons Without Back Buttons", but I feel like that's too long. Anyone got any ideas? - Catjaz63 17:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think you can get it any shorter than that, unless you're willing to settle for a really informal name like "Backless Toons", or something that's difficult to understand like "Orphaned Endings". And maybe it's just me, but it doesn't look all that long the way it is, either. --   PURPLE  SHARD * 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Toons Without Back Buttons" seems fine to me. It's clear, concise, and shorter than many other names of pages we have on this wiki. — Defender1031*Talk 22:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Here are the official translations for some of The Cheat's and Pom Pom's lines in SBCG4AP:

How should we cover them? RickTommy (edits) 09:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the first question to ask is "SHOULD we cover them". Followed up, depending on the answer, by "how". Personally, I'm on the fence about the former. — Defender1031*Talk 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Importance of edit summaries

discussion 1; discussion 2

If edit summaries are for page histories first and Recent Changes a distant second, what about user contribution pages? RickTommy (edits) 03:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be third, so distant from first and second you can barely see it. — It's dot com 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
But can Original Bubs see it? - Catjaz63 05:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaints about the "Log in / create account" page

Please, give us back the old "Log in / create account" page, so we will have the chance to register an user-name on! We swear, we should certainly not be mean to you at all! We want to be kind-hearted, so we will create an account on an EASY way! Thank you! :'( -- 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This question has already been answered in an above discussion. Talk:Main Page#Account creation? - Catjaz63 19:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary Segmentation

So, Broncotroll has been adding a new 'section' to certain articles that separates Poker Night at the Inventory references to 'Out-of-Universe'. Personally, I don't believe that PK&tI references should be segregated, but rather just considered normal and added in the normal 'Appearances' and references to it in articles should not be removed. - Catjaz63 18:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I can understand what you mean about the segmentation, but having references to Strong Bad "going to the inventory" definitely merited deletion. Strong Bad is an oft-visited article and it should not have passing references to out-of-universe games no one bought. --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, I mostly segmented the PNATI references when having them in the text of the article would be confusing or break the fourth wall. For example, I have no idea who "Heavy" is, and mentioning him as if he's an hr character and not some crossover guy is misleading. --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 21:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Just unsegmented it in places where it was streamlined into appearances. But I think the segment should stay when foreign characters or references are involved. Also, I have a precedent. I got the particular wording from Explosions--Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 22:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I still disagree and find it completely irrational to segregate just bullet points because they make references to characters outside of the Homestar Runner universe. You shouldn't remove or segregate information on articles just because you don't understand it.
Also, you saying 'passing references to out-of-universe games no one bought.' is incredibly ignorant. - Catjaz63 23:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because you say it in bold doesn't make it true, it just makes you like a supercilious ***. --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 00:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You call me supercilious when you just violated an HRWiki policy by swearing in a situation where it does not add to the conversation and is not a quote. .
Also, you keep referring to some 'precedent', yet you never link to it. - Catjaz63 00:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to try to steer this conversation from a never-ending slapfights of ad hominem into a conversation again. The big question I ask with this decision is, Are there enough examples of out-of-universe bullets to warrant a new section on every page that PK&TI is mentioned? Since it's the only thing that's really big that isn't just a small short that is out of universe and features a Homestar Runner character, there is almost no reason that it should warrant its own section and not be incorporated into the HRWiki like everything else is. It's such a small game that it can be easily put into articles seamlessly and doesn't need this silly column just for it. If you don't understand the bullet point, you could click on the game title and learn about it and who 'The Heavy' is in the game. These changes are not needed and should all be reverted for adding nothing to the content but being intrusive into the natural flow of articles. - Catjaz63 00:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit Conflict: Broncotroll, The "precedent" you refer to as "proof" that we do things this way was originally added by... wait for it... you! This sectioning off has never been how we do things. In addition, your recent comment using profanity was uncalled for, and inappropriate. Please do not do it again. — Defender1031*Talk 00:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
On the topic of whether we should be separating references like this, the answer is no. They are references made by TBC in works in which TBC were directly involved made by HR characters. Oh, and for the record, if we're going to start separating every reference by what universe it's in, every page is going to have like four or five sections. I agree with Catjaz. It breaks up the flow of pages and gives undue attention to the "out-of-universe" entries. In essence, separating them makes them stand out more, and gives them MORE weight, not less. — Defender1031*Talk 01:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll defer. You're right. I totally didn't remember making that edit. --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 01:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The one thing I do agree with you on though is the removal of the line that essentially said "Strong bad likes to spend his free time when he's not checking email jumping out of the HR universe and playing poker in a multi-universe crossover" from his character bio. Stuff like that doesn't really belong. — Defender1031*Talk 01:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you sir. And I'll try to stop cussing. --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 02:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A Small Idea

This is an odd idea, but would it be possible to embed Strong Bad's latest tweet on the front page? I feel like there's a lot of wasted space under the 'Browse the Knowledge Base' section that could be used for an embedded tweet or something else. - Catjaz63 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, great idea! That would actually make the main page a lot livelier. I would recommend putting it in a template and updating that. --   PURPLE  SHARD * 10:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Idea I like! +1! How about calling the template {{latesttweet}}? It'd have to be a the sysop who'd add the template to the main page in the end. --Stux 12:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that the HRWiki can support embedded tweets, however - Catjaz63 06:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, not literally, but I meant just copying the tweet's contents into a template (or any other kind of page), and then embedding that page on the main page, similar to the list of updates. We don't need to implement a live Twitter feed or anything complicated requiring an API like that. --   PURPLE  SHARD * 19:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, we could do that definitely! The only thing we need now is a sysop. But the question is, are sysops Legendary Legends or Mysterious Myths? Nobody's ever seen one in the last 86 minutes! - Catjaz63 20:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

An idea (again)

It would be a good idea to make a page with a list of all of the title cards in it (similar to the Opening Credits page)? Like this one in I Killed Pom Pom or A Decemberween Miracle Mackerel. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we not have a page like that already? I'm surprised... Well, if we don't, I'd recommend that it be named Title Cards, have a description explaining what a title card is, elaborating that only the big ones and holiday ones really ever have them, and then a gallery of all the title cards that ever happened in chronological order, with perhaps a see also pointing to Irregular Loading Screens, and Stockton running a slant to break through the defense. Got it? Annnnnd.... BREAK! — Defender1031*Talk 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Good jorb. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Maudi Algabban wants to say he's sorry

I just want to say how sorry I am for being a prick. All I wanted to say to you that I have NO contact with The Brothers Chaps at all, and it's TOTALLY UNFAIR. All I want to say is that I wanted to be ALLOWED/UNBLOCKED on ! Please, give me another chance! I won't harass you anymore! :'(

Thank you, Maudi Algabban -- 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools