HRWiki talk:Emails from HRWiki Users

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page of a deleted article. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this page that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section. Please refer to the inclusion guidelines that are generally applied to judge an article's merit.

Ok, I created this page to discuss this.

Do we, as a wiki, want to be in the business of officially attributing the emails written by various contributors?

I say no. We are in the business of documenting TBC's work, not our own. Adding FF's to a page saying "This One Guy wrote thius email!!1!!" is not encyclopedic, and is rather against what we are attempting here, IMO. Please add your thoughts. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is talk page and/or userpage material. The casual visitor, of which there are many, has no desire to know this information. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have desire to know this information. But I think that a fact in the trivia section will do unless we have maybe 10 to list here. SaltyTalk! 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Salty. The trivia section is good for me. I also believe that it's interesting for casual visitors. May make them more interested in the wiki. On the other hand, this list is kinda cool. Maybe we should move it to the HRWiki namespace? It falls into the same navel-gazing category as HRWiki:Articles about HRWikiLoafing 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so i, a casual visitor, visit and see much attention about a user who supplied an email. I wrote one, you know! I want to be recognized too. What's the bar? How do we decide which claims are notable? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As this has been recently linked and will be visited, allow me to restate my position. We are a knowledge base for TBC's work on H*R. We are not a fan-appreciation society. (We have other avenues for that sort of thing.) This article is absolutely incongruous with the mission of HRWiki and as such I propose delete. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that since proof is virtually impossible, it is very, very, very easily forged, which could compromise the encyclopediac value of our wiki. I agree with deletion and removal of all notes of this on main namespace articles. — Lapper (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess a talk page is enough. I go for deletion.--H*Bad 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe someone should adopt this page to their namespace... i.e. User:H*Bad/Emails from HRWiki Users. - Joshua 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate a point I just made elsewhere, aside from posting the email to your userspace at the time you sent it, or getting a copy notarized, there is no real foolproof way to show you sent a particular email. And I submit that even if it's proven with no doubt that a user has supplied an email TBC used, it still is not notable, as we do not note fan or submitter information, just TBC's corpus. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that this is in the HRWiki namespace, I don't have a problem with its existence per se. Given, however, that I don't believe (all of) its contents, maybe it should go away. — It's dot com 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree; my thoughts precisely. —BazookaJoe 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So... can I have that as my subpage?--H*Bad 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So long as it violates no rules we have agreed upon, you can have any darn thing you want as a user page. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

HECKS NO! It is awsome to have someone from the hrwiki get their sbemail question checked!!!

Drippingyellowmadness CoolS.png talk23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure it is, but what stops people from making false claims to be listed? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, the thing is...I haven't told anyone this yet but...I am Vinnie C. That's right. I created Homsar. Seriously, I did! He was me! I've still got the email in my inbox, I'll upload a snapshot of it if you want me to... – The Chort 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Qermaq, anyone could say they did anything. I know I'm a month late, but, The Chort, I believe you out of deciding to believe you after looking at your userpage- you like Homsar and stuff. However, there is a bunch of people out there who want to say, "Yeah, I wrote blah blah blah." If you really wanted to, you could probably put it on your user page. --Collin Diver 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I recently found out this info is already recorded in the statistics page. Bad Bad Guy 19:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Why is this page taking over five months to delete? If I remember correctly you deleted my article in less than a week! (I do remember me giving you my permission, so I'm not mad) Bad Bad Guy 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace and implications

Dot com, and any others with an opinion: why should the namespace of this article excuse this article covering what users contribute to H*R to the exclusion of what TBC contribute? In my opinion, we are here to document what TBC do. We are not in any way a glamour press, touting our own accomplishments, and as such there's no place for articles in any namespace detailing any user's accomplishments (aside from any which fall into the TBC category). Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree — I think one of the legitimate uses of the HRWiki namespace is content that encourages the formation of community among users. This namespace isn't intended for the outside world, just for contributors to the project, so I wouldn't think of it as bragging to the outside world, but rather being excited for each other if/when our emails are used by TBC. To me that fits the purpose of this namespace. Trey56 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but let's temper that with (1) the provability of such claims (2) nothing we post online is not intended for the outside world and (3) the appropriateness of such claims within a site claiming to be a knowledge base. Any reactions? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with #1; as for #2, yes, anyone searching the internet can find pages in the HRWiki namespace, but since they're not linked to from any articles in the mainspace, relatively few will find them other than regular contributors. As for #3, yes, we are a knowledge base, but if we didn't believe that pages intended for community-building were important, we would constrict information on user pages to strictly article-related material.
I think #1 is your best point — any unverifiable information on this page should not stay. Trey56 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Trey. There are quite a few pages where at least part of their purpose is to create and maintain community involvement and document our experience here, as opposed to strictly relating to the mainspace pages. And if the information on this page were verifiable, then I think it would be a worthwhile contribution to our project to include it. Of course, it's not verifiable, and so we have a legitimate problem with its being anywhere. — It's dot com 01:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Then I suppose the question hanging is this: are the existing claims of email-ship adequatre for notation in the Wiki? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen the evidence for most of them, but of the so-called proof I did see, let's just say I was less than impressed. In fact, I myself made a more convincing (and yet fake) screenshot than the supposed author did. — It's dot com 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
And what about the note at the bottom of Strong Bad Email Statistics? Do we remove this as well? – The Chort 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The bottom of that page says that the claims have been substantiated. My question is, where and how? I would not have a problem with this page if the claims on it have been verified somehow. If there were some kind of standard of proof (like, evidence established before the fact, or signing one's known name), then I would be okay with it. Obviously, simple screenshots are worthless, and for that reason I have removed one of the entries in the list. Who knows, maybe the claim was legit, but then again, if you don't even sign your email, then it's just too bad for you. — It's dot com 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
montage#Trivia links to this forum post for "confirmation". The next post by Jones makes a pretty good attempt at confirming it. I know there's no standards or anything, but that was always good enough for me. -- Tom 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools