Talk:Quote of the Week Character Heads

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit]  ?

The new quote of the week features a quote from Cheerleader about jiggy jugguhs, and one this page it says her head was used for this quote, but when I watch the quote, I see Homestar's head on my screen. SaltyTalk! 22:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That happens sometimes. There's an explanation on the Quote of the Week page. --DorianGray

[edit] New Page

Admins, are these ok to be served locally from the HR site? I'm guessing yes, but I want your blessing! :) --Stux 01:44, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a "Whatever", cuz I had to add it! ;) --Stux 01:45, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
No. They only can be served from the Wiki. —Gafaddict Image:Gafaddict sigpic.gif (Talk | Contribs.) 01:56, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Oops! By HR site I meant the wiki! :) --Stux

Does the gallery feature allow for subtitles? I liked the ability to click on each character's name to get to their page. --Stux 02:27, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You mean a link? Here: [[Link Text|Page]]
If the Link Text and page are the same, omit "Link Text" and the "|".—Gafaddict Image:Gafaddict sigpic.gif (Talk | Contribs.) 16:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Oh, this is an older post. At the time, the gallery op had been just applied and the page had no names or links under the pictures (like it does now), so I wanted to know if it could be done. Thank you though for your help and response. :) --Stux 19:29, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I had an idea

Back when it was a graph, I had an idea. Why don't we include the dates of when each head was used? - Joshua

Good idea! I was thinking to also include the last quote that they had and a link to it, but maybe that is 'overkill'. --smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 02:27, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Dates by themselves should work. - Joshua
That's really not necessary, because that's noted on the Quote of the Week page. — It's dot com 02:32, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
But we love organizing stuff many different ways. Eh, I don't really care so much. - Joshua 02:33, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Background

The backround of that gallery is slightly different than white. Can someone fix that (I don't know how)? The picture backrounds are white, not transparent. --smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 02:26, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether that's changeable. We may just have to live with that. — It's dot com 02:32, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree, although I wish u could change it. SM looks kinda freaky. — talk Bubsty edits
I've been trying, but so far no luck. See this page for info. — It's dot com 02:36, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If we change it back to a table, there would be a way to make it look like a gallery and get the backrounds white. Also, it would make it look --Stux 03:04, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)like the QOW page. --smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs)
Meh, I think that would be only a marginal improvement, especially considering how convenient the gallery is. — It's dot com 02:46, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Apparently According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Gallery, the only facilities it provides is referencing the links and adding optional text. --Stux 02:45, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Options: we can use the Wiki tables format (haven't learned that one quite well yet), or we can use the hard-coded gallery output and change the color like this:
<table class="gallery" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td> <div class="gallerybox"><div class=" " tyle="padding: 26px 0;">
and then modify the color settings (ugh somehow, -- i'm still not that familiar with CSS)
We could also photoshop all of the backgrounds. (forgot to sign) --Stux 02:51, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I fixed Strong Mad (hard-refresh to see it). Does it look good? Do the rest need to be fixed? — It's dot com 02:56, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I like!... It definitely looks good! And it would be nice to see them all fit the same pattern (are you keeping the original white versions? I'm a perfectionist at heart. Somewhere.) Keep in mind these aren't exactly the original pictures extracted but no one really can tell 'except us in the trenches. So the white versions would be great (I know Smiley liked that), but I personally am happy with gray. --Stux 03:04, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It definitely looks better, but I'm not sure if it'll be worth all the effort. - Joshua 02:59, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I can do the graying stuff here, I just have never uploaded pictures. --Stux 03:04, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, if you want to go to the trouble to make the page look better than it already does (which I think is pretty good), then be my guest, but I think my input is done, at least for this weekend. By the way, click "upload file" on the left and follow the instructions. — It's dot com 03:07, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Done! Whew! Have a good night all! --Stux 03:45, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I left a lengthy note on your talk page, Stux, but I'll say it again here: Good jorb! — It's dot com 03:48, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the awesome and kind note! Man it's Sunday already! Your entry was the first for Oct 2nd (Congraturations?)! And my clock is accurate too? Wow. Strange night. ;) --Stux 04:02, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If No One minds...

If no one minds, I'm going to go ahead and add the dates last used to the page. smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 15:05, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll wait until someone posts either a go-ahead or a no-go before doing that. smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 15:15, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How about a "Where and how do you intend to place the dates?". I love politics. (Not really, but they give you such powerful tools of nonsaying.) --Stux 15:28, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The page would look like this page does: User:Smileyface11945/Quote of the Week Character Heads, plus the category. smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 15:54, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Would that be ok? Or not ok?
Personally, I don't mind at all! It looks good! If no one else objects, I'd say go for it! You'd want to include a note saying that the date listed is the last date the head was used. --Stux 23:59, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I like it! Go for it!--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 00:00, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea too. I particularly like the 'unused' bits, letting us know who may have quotes in the future. Just be sure to update it every now and then. --DorianGray

[edit] Dates

How is that for the dates idea? I was also thinking of adding a list of characters whose quotes have been used but don't have pictures. Sound grood? smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 14:42, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How is that going to look with characters with multiple quotes? - Camalex(talk) 00:06, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I believe it's just going to show their most recent quote's date, and be updated as needed. --DorianGray
That was what I had in mind. smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 00:08, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I think it should say like: last used:(whatever date)--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 00:10, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see if i can work that in there. I moved this conversation to Talk:Quote of the Week Character Heads. smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 00:18, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I see you saw my move. Cool. I'll work in that 'last used'. smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 00:18, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
That's good, but some of the longer ones are on three lines. Specifically: Blue Laser Commander. Maybe we can abbreviate? smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 00:23, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Looks great! --Stux 00:30, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I made the dates more international friendly. — It's dot com 06:31, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How come many heads that have been used are marked "Unused"? Alcnolien 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Because their quotes came before they started using the characters heads in the Quote of the Week. --DorianGray

[edit] Horrible Painting

Sorry to be a bother, but are we going to add that Horrible Painting or whatever head? --Color Printer 20:43, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we are, eventually. What I'd like to know is what the 'rocoulm' in the source code means in relation to the Horrible Painting.
On a side note, I was planning to use the Horrible Painting as my personal QotW next week. Guess they beat me to the punch, eh? --DorianGray
Eh, I added it about an hour ago. Knock ya'selves out. 7omεpsilon22:29, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Place?

Shouldn't "When using a character head that hasn't been added yet, Homestar's head is used until the appropriate character's head is uploaded. This has happened with the Geddup Noise's and Horrible Painting's quotes." be on this page instead of the QotW page? smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QoW chronology

I have two related questions:

  1. When did the QoW start using character heads?
  2. Wasn't the QoW character heads format just homestar's head used regardless of who was saying stuff, if so, when did they start using *different* character heads for their QoW to show the correct head for a quote?

These facts are unclear from reading this page and the main QoW page. I think we should keep up with it's chronology. So if anyone knows/can remember that would be great! --Stux 15:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'd just like to bring attention to the questions I posted some time ago. --Stux 17:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I have posted the same question in the QoW page as well. --Stux 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea. — talk Bubsty edits 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think I has the solution!
1. 22 Nov 2004
2. I think I don't knows the solution! — Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Hey, do you think we could get external links with links to each head's location on the site? - Joshua 14:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. The heads were actually decompiled from the flash. I beleive they still remain embedded in the flash file itself. --Stux 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Say...

How do you guys know the unused heads?

They all exist in the XML file. So we just looked at that, and took it apart to find them. --DorianGray

'Kay.

[edit] Im-age

Could anyone get that new The Cheat head or something and put it on here? KlingOnMyDreams 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

this one? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. The one that was added about thirty minutes after the talk post happened. It's been settled for three and a half years, so you don't need to reopen discussion when there is nothing to discuss. The Knights Who Say Ni 20:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Distortion

Why are all of these images a little bit distorted? Or rather, they're NOT distorted, but they LOOK distorted on the page. It looks like the table is blowing up the pictures just a little bit. --Jay (Talk) 02:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the gallery magic has chosen 120px, and scales each picture up to that (width or height, whichever is longer, maintaining aspect ratio). You can give it a different number with "widths" or "heights", like <gallery widths="120px">, but afaik it's all or nothing — no way to specify size on an image-by-image basis. I played with it some and that can make most of them look better, but there were always a couple that still looked distorted.  Green Helmet 03:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. It sure would be nice if you could do <gallery widths="just-use-their-real-widths-please">  Green Helmet
The distortion is a side effect of using the <gallery> format. The MediaWiki docs mention that tables allow better control over image sizing etc., so I offer a proof of concept alternative in this oldid (compare to the gallery way with the distortion). -- Tom 03:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Oooo! The images look nice and crisp in the table-based function. I like it! However, I don't like the blank boxes on the last rows on each table. Perhaps a cell format more closely resembly the gallery format would look better? The actual table borders could then be made invisible. Unfortunately I don't have any clear idea on how to go about doing this. Suggestions? --Stux 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. If there was some way to make it LOOK like a gallery without actually being one, that's be cool. It doesn't look quite as nice with a table as it does with a gallery framing each image and not the whole set. Also some of the ones in the second table are a bit too high, making the cells rectangular. — Defender1031*Talk 04:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
A gallery is just a shortcut for creating a table. There are several CSS classes already available that we could combine with a little manual formatting to imitate the gallery look. — It's dot com 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It's very possible to mimic the gallery formatting, see this oldid. And I'm pretty sure you can used defined classes too, I think Dot com might be working on that now. -- Tom 06:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got the defined classes in, and the table is in okay shape, or at least as good as I'm going to get it tonight. The problem is the vertical alignment, for which I have not yet found a simple solution that works in all browsers. Once we get this stable, we should move most of it to a template. — It's dot com 07:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missing heads?

Has anyone noticed that the Strong Bad and Strong Sad heads are missing from the wiki?

All the images on this article work fine on my computer. Maybe your computer is blocking them? I know that Image:jailcartoon01.png doesn't work for me, but apparently does for others. – The Chort 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gif/Gif

Can we get a gif of homestar and marzipan blinking like the heads do on the site? Dr. Savage 18:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What? They're not blinking. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
They do blink, but I think that might be a bit distracting on the QotW page. I could do it, but right now I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't. OptimisticFool 19:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh! That's what he meant! No, it would be creepy and distracting. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools