HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive 9

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Current | Archive 1 (1-10) | Archive 2 (11-20)
Archive 3 (21-30) | Archive 4 (31-40) | Archive 5 (41-50)
Archive 6 (51-60) | Archive 7 (Logo discussion) | Archive 8 (61-82)
Archive 9 (83-102)


[edit] Guitar Tabs?

Someone posted a guitar tab for Trogdor. Should we extend this into a semi-project to put guitar tabs on all the songs on Strong Bad Sings with guitar/bass parts? If so, I call I get to tab Moving Very Slowly! --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 20:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very worthwhile project. But then, I'm not a guitar enthusiast. — Lapper (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Lapper, we ARE supposed to document Homestar Runner. Why not do guitar tabs? Just don't go crazy and do the SBLOUNSKCHED! theme song. Also, I don't think you can call doing something, Martyo. If you want to do it, just do it. Dibs are for cars and ice cream, not wikis. Bluebry 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Bluebry, the only reason I called it is because if we decide to do this (which we haven't yet) a bunch of transcribers are going to want to tab out songs (and some non-transcribers might do some googling to find tabs) and I don't want to miss out on a song I know how to play. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If people want to do tabs, I think it's a great idea! That's good information that a lot of people might be interested in. That said, I tend to think it would be better to keep the tabs on a separate page, in general. I can see some of them getting kind of long, and the average person just trying to read about a given song shouldn't have to scroll through screens of guitar tabs. So, I propose that they be kept on a separate page and linked to. This way, they're easily accessible to the people who want to see them, but unobtrusive to those who don't. Trey56 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the guitar tab for Trogdor to Trogdor (song)/Tablature and linked to it in a "See Also" section of Trogdor (song) Before we move forward, is this what we want to do, or should we do it differently? --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, having tabs would be awesome. I'd like to play different town, for example. What should the naming scheme be? Trogdor (song)/Tablature is somewhat ugly. What about Trogdor Tablatures, just like we do for the visuals? Loafing 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Or Tablature: Trogdor. 'S perfect! Also, should we link in a see also? What about in the Detailed information area? Bluebry 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Having a separate namespace might be a little extreme, but I kinda like it. I'ma wait and see what others think. As for linkage, Detailed Info seems like a better way to go. That way, people don't have to search the page for a link. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe possibly maybe. Also, should we include download links for things like Power Tab? Or will men in black fedoras grab us for copyright violation? Bluebry 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Power Tab's certainly got MY approval. Most of the tabs I transcribe ARE in Power Tab. I don't see how someone could sue us for linking to their product :P. So, yeah. Power Tab = Awesome. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, where it says Bass, I think you should actually put the bass tablature on there. I'm sure it'll help newbies and be more professional looking to all. :-) SMILEYS ARE GREAT! Bluebry 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just wonderin, if we will have all these tabs for songs, don't we need a page with a list of all the songs that have been tabed and link to the tabliture? If we do, i will start work on it immediately.--Kanjiro talk 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
We do. Trey made a category. Loafing 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, i wanted to do it.--Kanjiro talk 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undo summary

The undo function has proved quite popular. There's one aspect of it, however, that I don't really like: the way the username is included in the summary, forever recorded that the user was reverted. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it feels like a vandal rollback, which is kind of a slap in the face. (As a side note, I'm also concerned that the undo function is being used for simple reverts of the last edit; I feel like its primary purpose is to surgically fix something a few lines down in the history.) I'd like to remove the username from the automatic summary, so that a typical undo looked like this: (undid revision 000000; reason for the undoing)It's dot com 04:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% — I think it's unsettling to see one's name in the automatic part of the summary. Perhaps this is because of the similarity to the automatic summaries from the rollback feature, which is used almost exclusively to revert vandalism. I think the automatic summary for the undo feature should be revised as you propose. Trey56 04:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Better this way. The username in the summary is really off-putting: the effect to me seems rather like pointing a finger at another user and saying "you made this edit I undid". I'm not saying anyone meant to say this, but I do think that's the effect. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, although if someone reverts vandalism, it might be good for the ops to be able to see at a glance who to block (yes i know they can check the history) — Defender1031*Talk 04:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't particularly mind, although Dot com has noted previously that it peeves him to have his name in an edit summary not preceded by "reply to". I, personally, don't mind having my name being shown as the one being reverted, as long as there's a solid edit summary following. — Lapper (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought that the current text is fine. But with people constantly using it to revert the last edit instead of undoing older edits, I wholeheartedly agree with Dot com's suggestion. It will also make edit summaries shorter and easier to read. Loafing 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What if "revision 000000" automagically created a link to the edit (technically speaking, "&diff=prev&oldid=000000"), like this:
(undid revision 492115; forum-style post)
It's dot com 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we squeeze a timestamp in there? It could be as small as "8.24, 15:26", but I'd like to see when that undone revision was made, if possible. (undid revision 492115 (8.24, 15:26); forum-style post). — Lapper (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought stuff like that is recorded in RC; that is, the "diff" link is a link to the revert, and RC already tracks the time and date of all edits. I'm in favor of the plain (undid revision 000000; vandalism)SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 15:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lapper: We don't record timestamps of the undone edit now, and we do just fine. There isn't an easy mechanism to add them, either. It could be done, of course, but it would involve reworking more than a line or two of code, which is all it would take to add the link (and clicking on the link will show the old edit, including the timestamp and the editor). — It's dot com 16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I like Dot Com's idea, that is link with no timestamp. — Defender1031*Talk 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Loafing 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm in. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 10:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the changes. After a little time has passed, please comment on whether you think it's an improvement. — It's dot com 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea! Elcool (talk)(contribs) 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week since the new format, and I've got nothing against it. Nice and simple, and it doesn't incriminate the revertee as strongly. Great jorearb. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree. I thought it was a good idea, but now I see that this edit summary is less helpful. It doesn't give any context. When it still included the user name, one could guess which edit was meant just by looking at the history. That number isn't helpful in the least (unless you mouseover the links in the history and compare those 6-digit numbers - which I certainly don't do). I would prefer edit summaries like "undid edit 123456 by Stupid_ol'_Loaf". Loafing 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If you click on the revision number it leads you to the exact edit. And I'd argue that in all edits, it's up to the editor to provide context, not the system. Havin g the system make it easier for an editor to be lazy - is that what we want? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's much better! this is awesome! The Goblin!! 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So what exactly is the "trusted user list"?

I noticed a few times, it seems that somewhere, this Wiki has a trusted user list, or so I saw while looking around on talk pages. So I was wondering, is it a tangible thing (meaning it actually exists) or is it just in the minds of staff members and such?--~ SlipStream 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no list (and there is also no staff). Obviously, some users are trusted more by the community than others, but I don't think anybody would keep a list or something. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but I hope this answers your question. Loafing 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this what you are referring to? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I caught up with Slipstream in IRC, that's the page he was talking about... it's all been cleared up now, nothing to worry about. phlip TC 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing extra attention to a dumb idea i had a long time ago... :( — Defender1031*Talk 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(For those of you who have a hard time reading sarcasm over the internet, that was an example of it.) — Defender1031*Talk 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images accessable from both wikis

I contribute a lot to both of our HRWikis (the fanstuff being the other). However, I find it quite difficult that a lot of images that would be useful on the Fanstuff wiki are only hosted on the knowledge base. Someone with server side privelages might be able to make an image uploaded on one wiki accesable by the other. Sorta like Wikimedia Commons, where you upload it there, and it can be accessed by all the wikimedia projects. I would find it very easy. Tell me what you think! The Goblin!! 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an awesome idea, but I don't have server privaleges. It' up to like It's dot com or somebody like that. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It is technically possible to do this, but relatively speaking there are so few images that are used on both wikis that the costs outweigh the benefits at this time. — It's dot com 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. There's literally no need to put forth the effort to make a commons, as HRWiki and HRFWiki really have nothing much in common that way. — Lapper (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally see value in keeping the two distinct, and that value is enjoyed on both sides. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the merit in allowing this, but isn't Commons a separate wiki? That means we would have to set another wiki up, migrate all the existing images from both the HRWiki and the HRFWiki to it, and force a redirect to said wiki whenever someone tries to upload another image. Sounds like too much of a waste of time, especially considering the amazingly small amount of images that actually have a point in being cross-linked. ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons is in fact a separate wiki. That fact alone means that they could've used the english wikipedia (or in this case the HRWiki) to make the image-copying magic. It is made separate for clarity and to avoid confusion, not necessarily for technical reasons. That said, it is a lot of work to do for what may not be used all that much. At best some script could be created to extract images from the HRwiki into the fanstuff. But again, that's a bit of work and its implementation would depend on demand/benefit and an available programmer. --Stux 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, we wouldn't have to put all images in Commons. 'Kipedia doesn't do that either. But I agree with Dot com and Qermaq: Only very few images would actually be shared between us and the fanstuff, making it not worth the effort. Also, I strongly argue to keep both wikis as separate as possible, content-wise. It will get messy if we don't. Loafing 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preserve birthday card(s) as part of the history?

Okay guys, we've come to that bridge and crossed it. Now it's time to ask the big question: Do we make a page for Mike's card? I don't see why not. I already created a category for the images. This, I think, is useful whether we make a page or not. Anywho, what have ye all to say? --Stux 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think we should. Homestar-Winner (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I started a not so good article covering it (made before the world ended, and submitted after it came back up ;) ). Extra info would be most welcome. --Stux 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Count increment broken

Okay, for some reason the #count+increment and #resetcount parser tags don't seem to be working properly. (At least not from my machine -- which I seriously doubt is an issue, since it's all done server side, right?). I first found the problem in the QOW page, and have tried different things to assess the situation and try to find a workaround. However, I've come to the following conclusions (from my observations):

  1. The #resetcount tag is not resetting the counts for any value (except maybe to zero)
  2. The increment parameter in the #count tag seems to behave in some strange way
  3. All the count examples in the documentation still seem to work correctly (confusing me more).

As such, I am completely baffled by this behavior. Even all the names match! Maybe It's the spaces? I don't know. This is weird. Help! --Stux 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have been a formatting issue. Does this change fix the issue? -- Tom 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Stux, I tweaked the hresetcount template so that it properly resets the visible values on vcount, but other than that these templates and the underlying parser functions seem to be functioning in general as they should. — It's dot com 22:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh... yeah! Go figure. Leave it to me to create a template, add a feature, and months later, forget all about it that it exists! So yeah, the parser code and templates were working all exactly how they were designed to work :S. It's just my methods of "debugging" were waaay off. Hehe. Ahh programming. Thanks Tom for figuring out what was really wrong with QOW! I can't believe little spaces caused so much trouble. Ahh, programming. Thanks Dot com for fixing hresetcount and adding the appropriate documentation to vcount. I will be adding that info to hcount just in case I forget again. ;) --Stux 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it would be better to differentiate vcount from hcount, and not list unused features on hcount. Toward that end, I've listed both templates on hresetcount (and we should consider creating and differentiating vresetcount). — It's dot com 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and creating vresetcount sounds like a good idea. Though doing so would mean having to check all instances where hresetcount is called and see if vresetcount needs to be called. But that shouldn't be too much trouble. For now, I added the technical info back up. I think it's important in the h/vcount pages themselves to clearly state that the two templates work separately (more so with vresetcount). (This, of course, being a bad attempt at reminding me that their separate functions. ;) ) Ok! now to watch some anime! --Stux 05:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RandomArea

I'm starting my own wiki, and when browing extensions, I found Random Area. RandomArea is like the {{homsarquote}}, only it updates the maximum number of quotes by itself. I feel it would be a lot easier for new members to add quotes. Click here for info. The Goblin!! 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the features of the homsarquotes template is that it only chooses from all the quotes if it's used on the Homsar page; otherwise, it skips the first two. We could easily make the template use less code, but we set it up that way so that both the rendered list itself and the output of the template would look nice. I appreciate the suggestion, but I think we've got enough eyeballs on that page not to worry about installing anything else. — It's dot com 23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I understood that when I looked at the template, I knew it before suggesting it. Why does it need to skip the first two? The Goblin!! 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Because the first 2 aren't quotes, they're just captions. That template was originally made (and is still used) to prevent edit warring on the Homsar caption. — Defender1031*Talk 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted page talk pages

So the recent incident with the clapping page got me thinking that maybe we should leave talk pages from deleted pages intact so that future people can see why a page was deleted. It's not always so obvious, i mean granted, a page like "homestar is stupid and dumb" that would be tagged for speedy deletion would not need such a thing even if it somehow developed one, but for pages that actually get discussed i think it would be helpful. (Maybe also have a template for such pages?) Thoughts? — Defender1031*Talk 00:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It'd be very useful to see the precedents and reasonings and things behind why pages were deleted. Wikipedia keeps their discussion pages, and this is one thing of theirs I think we SHOULD emulate.
I also like the sound of that template. Something like "This is the talk page of a deleted article. Please do not participate in the existing discussions. If you have something new to say on why this page should be re-created, please start a new section below." Or something with good words. Better words than I can write. --DorianGray 01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think preserving deletion discussions is a good idea. I kind of wonder why we haven't been already. I also think Dorian's words were fine. — It's dot com 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this idea for the sake of preserving discussions. Heimstern Läufer 18:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea. Here are some possible ideas I came up with for text:
  • This talk page is an archive of a deleted article. Please do not contribute.
  • This article this talk page accompanies has been deleted. This talk page has been kept for historical reasons. Please do not contribute.
  • This talk page is kept for historical reasons, as it once accompanied a page that has been deleted. Please do not contribute.
  • This is a talk page of a deleted article. Please do not add to the discussions below.
Of course, the endings saying not to contribute can apply to all of them. The Goblin!! 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important, though to include a bit like DorianGray's line, "If you have something new to say on why this page should be re-created, please start a new section below." A running gag, for example, may not have enough appearances, but could suddenly acquire more later on, at which point the talk page would be a good place to propose that the article be recreated. Trey56 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a model of what it could look like: {{deletedtalk}}. It could perhaps use some improvement. Trey56 01:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks alright... we might want to edit the style a bit, but the wording seems fine. — Defender1031*Talk 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I like it, too. I changed the wording a little. Maybe we should change the image to something like this? We also need to find a way to easily distinguish between archived section and currently open threads. But yes, we should definitely use this template. Loafing 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviving?

Okay, since this looks like a promising idea, i also have a question about old talk pages. If we decide that this is a good idea, do we (and by WE i mean some sysop) go back and revive all the old talk pages, or is this only for the future? — Defender1031*Talk 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, a bot could be made to do such a thing. Still, would we? — Defender1031*Talk 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
How would a bot know the difference between a talk page where a deletion discussion occurred and one where it didn't? Heimstern Läufer 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
first of all, if there IS a talk page, then it probably means it was discussed, as speedy deletion pages get deleted quickly and don't usually end up with talk, secondly, it could search for "'''delete'''", as there tends to be at least one instance of that on every deletion discussion. — Defender1031*Talk 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
There are probably a lot more deleted talk pages with no discussion than you think. Consider all the talk pages that were page-move vandalism redirects from the Willy on Wheels days. Heimstern Läufer 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why i also suggested searching for bolded delete. — Defender1031*Talk 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary for anyone (or a bot) to bother undeleting all such pages, since we've gotten along without them fine up to now. If there is an individual case where restoring an old discussion would be relevant, then we can do so as the case presents itself. — It's dot com 19:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Another idea would be to write a script that searches the deleted pages' history (preferably in all namespaces) and finds any use of the {{tbd}} template and creates a list of pages that were very likely part of the normal deletion process. This would elminate 99%+ of all the unwanted vandalism-created pages. The list can then be eyeballed for obvious undesirables, and auto-revived. The rest of the interested community can then re-tag those pages (and mark any that should be re-deleted). How hard would implementing this sound? What kind of interest would be in this idea? What do you guys think? --Stux 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
All of that is technically possible, but I think our focus is elsewhere right now. I maintain that restoring pages on an as-needed basis is the most practical way to go. — It's dot com 19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to make a template to put on all talk pages that have the accompanying article deleted. That way we have a way to find them, through a category. I don't like seeing my orphan talk pages be all willy-nilly! —BazookaJoe 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm... you mean {{deletedtalk}} and its accompanying category? --Stux 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Presactly. I haven't edited for a week and I got really lazy. Didn't even notice it's in the section above this. I'm slipping... —BazookaJoe 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk. I had to reread your post twice because I thought *I* was making some mistake in reading it. What happened to your good ol' sharp self? Though if it wasn't for your post, it wouldn't have occurred to me to go back and tag toga yoga as deleted after someone who shall remain nameless *Cough*Dot Com*Cough* missed adding it. --Stux 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? I didn't know we'd decided to go with that template. — It's dot com 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my apologoies! From looking at the template use and this discussion I simply assumed that it had become official. That's what I get for trying to be somewhat "funny". Sorry Dot com. --Stux 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I assumed so, too. I only just noticed that the discussion for the template is actually in the section above... Loafing 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the deletion policy page be updated? We tend to discourage deletion of talk pages nowadays (at least ones where discussion happened), but the guideline page doesn't make that very clear. - 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday cards for TBC et al.

For reference, I've copied the following conversation from User talk:Invisible Robot Fish:

Hey IRF, How 'bout we make a card for Missy when her birthday rolls around? I can imagine she's feeling pretty left out right now. Besides, she's just as important as the Brothers Chaps. If you already have one in the works, lemme know. If you don't, talk to me, and I'd be happy to help you organize it and get it together. Sincerely,
Homestarmy Commando1 23:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that she hasn't got a card yet. I agree. Let's make a card for Missy! User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that there are others that want to do this. I want to mention 3 things: #1) I am about to go a 2 week vacation and will be out of contact for awhile (for Missy we have some time). #2) Matt's birthday is coming up much sooner that Missy's. #3) I have had the honor and privilidge of doing this twice now. I don't think it would be fair for me to hog this. Out of this experience I have had the opportunity to talk Karen Wagner a few times, which was awesome. I must also talk about access. I am not a sysop so the fact that I was trusted with the address to send things to the TBC is very rare. I think the less people that know such information, the bigger blessing that we can be as awhole to TBC. The LAST thing that we want is for sensitive information to be given to the wrong person (and I'm not imply that any of you are the wrong person) and TBC get tons of fan-mail crap in the mail. For these reasons, I think it best for a sysop or duly chosen user by the sysops to take the helm on this. I R F 11:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Matt already got a card, but Missy hasn't; I say we put her as the top priority for the moment. I see your point with the Brothers Chaps' mailing address. Not everyone could/can be trusted with valuable info like that. If that info was put in the wrong hands or was somehow leaked, TBC would be flooded with mail, and you, me, Sam, and anyone else involved would take the fall, maybe the whole Wiki, even. Maybe Loafing could be trusted with that. After all, he is a sysop.Homestarmy Commando119:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Loafing lives in New Zealand. It wouldn't be practical to ship something from there. I R F 10:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's get a sysop in the States to spearhead that. I really want to help with Missy's card, so I'll feel useful and get some recognition out of it. Do you have any ideas? Homestarmy Commando1
I suggest that you ask a sysop I R F 12:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
HC1: As I said on my page, if you're looking for something to do there are a lot of projects (see HRWiki:The Stick) that are more practical than this. (Do we even know her birthday?) Furthermore, anything being sent on behalf of the wiki would have to go through an administrator (Joey, Tom, or me), not just a sysop. — It's dot com 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So far, we have sent Matt and Mike physical birthday cards, and Invisible Robot Fish did an incredible job putting both of these together.

As seen above, there's some interest in continuing do something for Matt's, Mike's, and perhaps others', birthdays. I think there are a few questions we should discuss in this vein:

  1. Whose birthdays should we honor as a wiki?
  2. What should we do in the future when we want to send birthday wishes?
  3. Who should take charge of these projects?

#1 is clearly constrained by our knowledge of when people's birthdays are. As far as I can tell, we know when Matt's and Mike's birthdays are, but that's it. And I think that's a good place to stop. Yes, Missy does the voice of Marzipan, but there are others who do just as much or more for Homestar Runner (Karen Wagner, Ryan Sterritt, etc.) — we have to draw the line somewhere, and I think stopping at Matt and Mike is a good point (especially since we don't know anyone else's birthday!).

In regard to #2, I don't think we should do the same thing if we decide to do something for Matt or Mike's birthdays again. If we keep sending them giant birthday cards, I think the idea will get stale pretty quickly. Maybe we want to do something else in the future, but I think we should think of a different idea.

Finally, with respect to #3, IRF put a great deal of work into the past birthday cards. As he has indicated above, he'd like somebody else to take the helm of future projects, and I agree that it would be very unfair for us to expect him to put in the huge amount of work necessary to send out one of these again. Also, as IRF and It's dot com mentioned in the above quoted text, any communication sent by the wiki as a whole ought to go through the bureaucrats — Joey, Dot com, or Tom — for obvious reasons we should limit the spread of TBC's contact information as much as possible.

Any thoughts about any of these points? Trey56 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said above. I'm sorry for getting this whole stupid snowball rolling in the first place. I was feeling a little egoistic at the time of the first post. I guess I just needed someone to talk some sense into me. This does seem a little big for a meager user like me. Let's just go back to the way it was before my idea. Anyone else agree? Homestarmy Commando1
Oh, I hope you don't take any of the above comments as directed against you. I thought you brought up a good suggestion — one worth discussing :) You're a good user and have nothing to apologize for :) Trey56 02:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Trey. That made me feel better. I just thought you were backing up It's dot com and making me feel worse. But you do bring up some good points above. Homestarmy Commando1
It was not my intention to make you feel bad, simply to point out that there are things we need done more than this, and, like Trey, question whether we wanted to continue doing this at all. It's also my responsibility to make sure anyone who wants to send anything to TBC on behalf of the wiki knows they have to go through us. I know I come across as a killjoy, but whattayagonnado. — It's dot com 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Coup d'état? But seriously, I think it's best we only send happy birthday wishes to TBC. Don't want to go down the same slope Google did when they started doing logos for holidays no one's ever heard of. — Lapper (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen those. But also, I think TBC were happy when they got their own birthday poster. It may make them feel not as special (I don't have a better word) if we sent a poster card to every member of their family. Homestar-Winner (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Would some sort of mass "Thank you" card directed specifically at the supporting staff (by name) be too tacky? Something that says "hey we really, really, really appreciate all the work that you do to support TBC." Or something along those lines. --Stux 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically considering the creative and performance impact Missy has on the product, I would be in favor of including her in the birthday wishes in the event she chooses to disclose her birthday to the media or to us. Short of that, she is clearly wishing that date to remain a secret, and we have no plce infringing on that. Other than individuals actively invilved in creating the toons (Mike Matt and Missy, essentially) no others should be included as a matter of course. A 30th or 40th birthday, when known, might prove the exception. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 14:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good point. Celebrating Missy's birthday would be cool! At best, since we don't know it, we could celebrate her unbirthday! We'd have a 364 in 365 chance of getting it right this year, and 365 in 366 chance of getting it right this next year! Not a terribly great idea but seems fun. --Stux 23:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Eeee. When a woman does not disclose her birthday, that means we should not acknowledge it. It would not be an appreciated move to force a birthday on her without her consent. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween theme

Is there a CSS file for the halloween skin? I really like it, and was considering using it for MySkin. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, if you go to Common.css's history, you will see that is was manually modified. The Goblin!! 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
DorianGray likes to celebrate Halloween all year 'round. If you copy his monobook.css page into your own, you can too! — It's dot com 15:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What HRWiki is not

More of a question than a suggestion, but do we have any policies or pages on what HRWiki is not? There seems to be a volume of new users who register thinking this is some kind of social network rather than a collaborative encyclopedia. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 00:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

HRWiki:User space#What should I avoid? touches on the subject. — It's dot com 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But that does not cover it. I think there should be one. The Goblin!! 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That section in the userspace rules does address my main concern, that users don't know HRWiki isn't a social network, but I think we should make sure newbies know more about what they're getting into, or more accurately, what they're not getting into. I doubt users planning on registering know about userspace until after they create the account, then they think "Oh, I can have my own page?" and begin to treat it like some Homestar-themed Myspace. (That was what I thought when I was young and stupid, anyway.) We should make it more clear that that isn't what we are, and if we do create a new page for this it should encompass other misconceptions (I think that's the right word) as well: we aren't a paper encyclopedia, so growth of our project is virtually unlimited; we aren't adspace, while it's fine to promote one's own website, one must do so only within his or her own userspace; we aren't a soapbox, while it is occasionally necessary to give long speeches on a subject, it must remain relevant to our project of focus and we don't allow opinionated speeches on current events or politics or attitudes of self-promotion; and, of course, we aren't any of a number of terrible ideas. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that this idea has been tossed around for several years, but for some reason we've never decided to act on it. Why don't you write something up, and we'll see where it goes from there. — It's dot com 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean this has been suggested before? If so, I'd like a link; I think I should see how that discussion turned out before I start drafting. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's ever been suggested on the wiki itself, but I know it's been talked about before (I can find it in my chat logs at least as far back as 28 January 2006). I'd go ahead with a draft. If you don't want to spend a lot of time on it, it could be a very rough draft, just enough for us to get the general idea and determine if we want to keep going. — It's dot com 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't plan to make it lengthy yet, I'm just going to sort of list as many main ideas as I can think of and write brief descriptions of each. I'll put the draft on User:SamFisher1022/HRW:NOT. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The draft is done. Or it's at least been dormant long enough. I'm ready to hear what you all think. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Made some changes and left a comment on the talk page. --Stux 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, the discussions are finished. Any other issues before I create the page? — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 14:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upload help

Uploading images is becoming a common question among new users, and to my knowledge, we don't have a Help page for uploads. Somewhere on that page (somewhere obvious, like at the top), we should state exactly what "autoconfirmed" accounts refer to: accounts that have been active for a certain amount of time. Also, more of us need to know what that certain amount of time is. I was told it was 48 hours, but TheGirl successfully uploaded her first image after about 38 hours. Does it vary with server load or something? — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 15:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think we need an page to help with uploads; the upload page itself has plenty of information on how to do it. And as for auto-confirmation, only a note would be necessary. — Lapper (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, maybe a whole page is too extreme, but still, how long does autoconfirm take? If we add that to the FAQ, it should help tremendously. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Most likely 27 hours, if Dot com didn't change it. Just like I said on TheGirl's talk page. w00t. You can add a mention to FAQ about having to be autoconfirmed to upload an image, but we decided that the exact length of time should be an open secret. —BazookaJoe 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It's 28 hours. That number hasn't changed, either. — It's dot com 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subtitles viewer on sidebar

As most people know, on all toons, there is a link in the sidebar for the Subtitles namespace. However, someone like me, who uses Safari and can't use Greasemonkey, uses the subtitles viewer. If we put a link to the subtitles viewer there too, below the namespace links, that would add to convience. I know it is possible, I've done something similar on my wiki. What do you think? The Goblin!! 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template Categories

Thanks to the recent wiki software update, we now have the Special:Uncategorizedtemplates page. Our goal should be to keep this list as small as possible, and while some of the templates listed can be added to existing categories, some just don't fit into any. So I suggest new categories to hold these "miscellaneous" pages. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki Finances

From Template talk:SitenoticeDonationsLine
I want to categorize this page to help clear the Uncategorized Templates list, but I can't seem to find a category to fit it in. If this does fit somewhere, I'd really appreciate if someone could add the cat to the page; if not, perhaps we should have a category that includes HRWiki's money-related pages: HRWiki:Donations, HRWiki:Ledger, and this. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcript Templates

To keep with the Once and only Once policy, the transcripts for Teen Girl Squad Issue 1 and Crazy Cartoon are written on template pages and added to their respective pages. I think we should have a category for transcript templates to house these and any more if we make more in the future. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — It's dot com 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I second! er... third? one-hundred-seventy-three-thousand-three-hundred-twenty-fifth? something... i agree also. — Defender1031*Talk 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STUFF Templates

The STUFF system has a lot of templates. Instead of categorizing them all as Notice or Formatting templates, I think it would be better to keep them all together in one category (though it may not hurt to add them to more than one category). — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Bulletin Board

The Goblin!! came up with an idea that we could have a page called HRWiki:Bulletin Board that would function as a site-wide message board for to-do items, projects, and other stuff. I, personally, think that this is a great idea. Discuss. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, just so you know, there already exists a projects page that kinda does what you described. Unless the idea envisioned is radically different from this page, you should check it out. --Stux 06:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not radically different, but we do know about that. Techgeek should feel free to chime in here. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, what you described was basically exactly what HRWiki:Projects is. I'm agreeing with Stux completely. — Lapper (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Yeah, I don't know if this is the place to ask questions like this, though I guess it will serve to help me find out, but anyway, is there an automatic way to get the little gray text that says the section you're editing in the edit summary? DAGRON 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clicking the [edit] next to the subject will automatically do it, but you can hack it in by adding /* Your Text Here */ to your edit summary. The FAQ would've been a better place to ask, by the way. --DorianGray 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Counters: More trouble than they're worth?

I've noticed quite a few times that someone vandalized a page that normally the would not have done, except to change the vandalism counter, essentially "killing two birds with one stone". (there was one that i noticed that actually had that as the summary, i wish i could find it.) Here are a couple of examples: [1] [2] [3] — Defender1031*Talk 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that people've had these for a while, and a lot of great users have 'em, but I've thought for a while that they're unhelpful. Maybe it's 'cause I don't understand what they're for — why is it important to advertise how much your user page has or hasn't been vandalized? The only time I really notice them is when people come along and vandalize the page by increasing the counter, and then I'm never sure if I should actually revert them! ;)
This said, I'm not sure that we need a rule prohibiting them (the last thing we need is another rule and to have to go around informing everyone that has one that it must be removed), but I would personally prefer if people didn't have them. On the other hand, the edits you've mentioned happen pretty rarely (once every couple months or so), and since users editing other users' pages are easy to spot, they're easy to revert. Trey56 14:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Trey56. We should not have a rule prohibiting them (really, what do you care?), but rather... discourage them. Only reason I have one is because it's pretty much the only interesting part in my userpage.
As for these curious edits, if the vandal edits the counter appropriately (adding one), then it shouldn't be reverted, but a warning at the talk page would be in place. --Sysrq868 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've also always wondered about whether to revert them, and when i do, the next edit is usually the owner of the userpage in question reverting me... Oh well... Anyway, i wasn't suggesting a hardcore RULE against them, just bringing up that people might want to reconsider having them, that's all. — Defender1031*Talk 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's in the interest of the wiki to have users maintain what amount to vandalism scoreboards on their user page. It seems clear there won't be concensus to have any policy changes regarding them, but I'm thinking they actually promote vandalization. And the only purpose in telling people this on userpage that I can think of is to say "I'm cool enough to have been vandalized a lot" which we don't need to be doing. Unless someone knows a different reason, to which I am all ears. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that vandalism counters only encourage vandalism. They also imply that it is some kind of honour to have one's user page vandalized. Since when do we believe that vandals have any kind of good judgment? I'm not sure they should be prohibited outright, but they should definitely be discouraged. Loafing 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Loafing. It's obvious that vandalism counters don't serve any purpose, and though the users that have them may not treat them like trophies, that's what they do look like. I don't know if we could completely prohibit them, but that's what we should aim for. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting Articles for Discussion by time since flagged

I often get the feeling that articles end up sitting in this category for a substantial amount of time. I think we can benefit from being able to see how long an article has been under deliberation at a glance. So I'd like to propose a small change to {{tobediscussed}}:

[​[Category:Articles for Discussion|{​{A ParserFunction to calculate today's week minus the week it was added}}]]

If not, perhaps it could be added to the template inline. It's just a proposal, after all. — Lapper (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[​[Category:Articles for Discussion|{​{A ParserFunction to calculate today's week minus the week it was added}} {​{PAGENAME}}]] is better, so we have the name there also. — Defender1031*Talk 15:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If I understand the functioning of mediawiki correctly, the parser function only gets evaluated when the page is rendered: that is after an edit or a purge. That means that stale pages (those that weren't edited since the tag was added) will be stale (showing that the tag was added the same week). Moreover, all that would provide would be a number from 0-9 (or a letter from a-z or A-Z), which is why WP has specific categories for each month when tags were added. (At least it does for cleanup and source tags, not sure about delete). This wiki is so small, dated categories wouldn't be very helpful I think. --Stux 04:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sig Box

Ok, our sig mantra is "it must fit in the box". However, innumerable examples exist where a sig will be in the box on one computer and not on another. The reason is the box is sized in pixels, while text is generally (optimally) sized in ems. The two measurements do not relate to each other in any regular way. Plus, replaced fonts and other crazy stuff browsers do really introduce surprises into the mix. So it's impossible to guarantee that any sig will or will not fit in a pixel box, unless that sig is entirely sized in pixels, which is sub-optimal for web authoring.

So, the question before you all is simply this: do we need to rethink how we conmtrol sig size? And if not, how do we determine when a sig is OK, even when it is oversized on some systems? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I read "Your total signature size can only be one line, and limited to around 20 or 25 characters." on HRWiki:Signature. The box is just a very helpful tool (the page says "in other words" when it introduces the box), it's not meant to be the primary essence of the rule as the rule is designed not to be terribly exact. See our last discussion of this, especially Dot com's last comment which I believe is a very appropriate response. In that regard, are there instances where this is an active problem? -- Tom 03:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it bears repeating here:
We are not concerned with the fact that, if you really try, you can configure your system to make all signatures violate the policy. What we are concerned with is how a signature renders on the majority of browsers that are used to visit the wiki under normal conditions. The pixel definition is a useful tool to help us make a call, and it works well under most circumstances. Any time when it wouldn't work would be so infrequent as to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. — It's dot com 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It's dot com 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's a trip down memory lane. The text on the page reads "Your total signature size can only be one line, and limited to around 20 or 25 characters. In other words, it must fit inside this box." There's no saying one is more important than the other. It's implied that the two are equivalent, when they simply are not. Dot Com's comments are decidedly vague, actually, and essentially say "we have no strict solution, and will make a call if there's a problem". I'm wondering if there's a way to avoid the ambiguity and use a rule that will apply more universally.
As far as a current issue, I was clearly moved to comment by this discussion. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If a sig is out by a pixel or even a letter, then it's not that big a deal. We've had the current standard for a while, and it does what it's supposed to do: keep signatures at a manageable length. If a consensus of people think a sig is unreasonably long based how the standard is displayed on their computers, then we say something. (Aftr all, the standard is for people who have to view others' signatures, not their own.) — It's dot com 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
(after conflict) Regarding that specific situation: If that user is using a font that doesn't appear on most users' systems (and makes his sig that much longer because of it), then we're justified in continuing to say something. The key is, what do most people see when they see his sig? Is there anything (changing fonts, removing images) that can be done to bring the signature to conform to our standard on a majority of users' systems? — It's dot com 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of the Year Update

Hello guys, another year as come and gone (too fast...) and it's time for another update! I'm guessing all of our stuff is gone, and I know this is done very infrequently, however I went ahead and made a checklist for this rare event for future generations to enjoy and take advantage of.

However, I would like to point out that H* updates has not been updated because it is protected. I updated the talk page (even if the redirect target does not yet exist). I am writing this for two reasons:

  1. obviously the redirect needs to be updated
  2. is there a need for the page to be protected? Any previous threats of vandalism have waned and I know it's generally the wiki's policy to protected unless absolutely necessary, and I currently see no such need.

Thanks! --Stux 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We should move that checklist somewhere into the project space. The updates page (now a redirect) was protected because way back in the day it was a target of unwanted edits and vandalism. That reason has ceased to be relevant, so I've unprotected it. — It's dot com 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Before I move the page into the project namespace, I'm wondering: would a page listing all the checklists be of any use? That is, it would list the Talk:Quote of the Week, Talk:Strong Bad Email, etc. checklists (can't think of others that need to be done). I'm not entirely sure as to the benefit, but it's good to have all checklists have some visibility and ease of access (from anywhere on the wiki). Alternatively, links to the checklists could be added to a See Also section. I ask because this would determine the page's name. --Stux 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Category? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Great idea Qermaq! I've created the category and moved the page to its new home. I'll be making shortcuts, soon! Mmmm shortcake... --Stux 08:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools