HRWiki talk:Standards - Revision history

DEIDATVM: could be dealt with in a similar manner to voice only listings (i meant to reply to this days earlier)

DEIDATVM — Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:27:09 GMT

could be dealt with in a similar manner to voice only listings (i meant to reply to this days earlier)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 10 January 2025
Line 245:		Line 245:

	What is the policy in case a character is heard before he is seen, and other characters appear before him, but he does end up making an appearance? In [[Decemberweenvent Calendar (2022 Revisited)]], Strong Bad says the first spoken line, but he is not seen in the toon before Strong Mad and Strong Sad are, so there is some discrepancy about which order the characters should be listed in. I'm not immediately sure if there is a precedent for this happening outside of [[Marzipan's Answering Machine]], but it wouldn't surprise me if it has happened before. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 05:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)		What is the policy in case a character is heard before he is seen, and other characters appear before him, but he does end up making an appearance? In [[Decemberweenvent Calendar (2022 Revisited)]], Strong Bad says the first spoken line, but he is not seen in the toon before Strong Mad and Strong Sad are, so there is some discrepancy about which order the characters should be listed in. I'm not immediately sure if there is a precedent for this happening outside of [[Marzipan's Answering Machine]], but it wouldn't surprise me if it has happened before. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 05:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
		+	:I'm not sure about that exact kind of precedent existing either, but there's a similar precedent in the fact that, as compared with visual appearances, many if not all "(voice only)" appearances are listed by the same standard and in the same order. By that token, I think going by the character's first appearance in any form, whether that be audio or visual, would make the most sense. {{User:DEIDATVM/sig}} 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The Knights Who Say Ni: /**/Cast (in order of appearance)

The Knights Who Say Ni — Mon, 30 Dec 2024 05:22:14 GMT

: Cast (in order of appearance)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 30 December 2024
Line 241:		Line 241:
	*[[Homestar Runner Original Soundtrack]] (all three volumes), [[Degradest Hits]], and [[Dangeresque: The Roomisode Triungulate Soundtrack]] do not format the song names in any way. Notably, every track on HSROST and DH is by the same artist.		*[[Homestar Runner Original Soundtrack]] (all three volumes), [[Degradest Hits]], and [[Dangeresque: The Roomisode Triungulate Soundtrack]] do not format the song names in any way. Notably, every track on HSROST and DH is by the same artist.
	I'm not sure where the bold/italic formatting came from. In most listings of song information, the practice is either to put the song title "in quotes" (this is {{w\|WP:TRACKLISTING\|Wikipedia's policy}}, see tracks formatted as {{w\|Grease: The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture\|tabled}} or {{w\|Dirty Dancing (soundtrack)\|list}} as examples) or to not apply any special formatting to either song title or artist name (this is done [https://www.discogs.com/release/499618-Strong-Bad-Strong-Bad-Sings-And-Other-Type-Hits on Discogs], and is common across music streaming platforms). I think quotes could be useful, as we sometimes append information to a song's title {{--}} (hidden track) for instance {{--}} which can add ambiguity when some songs have parentheticals in their names ([[Everybody to the Limit (Live)]], [[Peasant Spawning (is Confusion)]]). Quotes or no, I think we should lose the bold/italic formatting in the first two articles. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 17:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)		I'm not sure where the bold/italic formatting came from. In most listings of song information, the practice is either to put the song title "in quotes" (this is {{w\|WP:TRACKLISTING\|Wikipedia's policy}}, see tracks formatted as {{w\|Grease: The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture\|tabled}} or {{w\|Dirty Dancing (soundtrack)\|list}} as examples) or to not apply any special formatting to either song title or artist name (this is done [https://www.discogs.com/release/499618-Strong-Bad-Strong-Bad-Sings-And-Other-Type-Hits on Discogs], and is common across music streaming platforms). I think quotes could be useful, as we sometimes append information to a song's title {{--}} (hidden track) for instance {{--}} which can add ambiguity when some songs have parentheticals in their names ([[Everybody to the Limit (Live)]], [[Peasant Spawning (is Confusion)]]). Quotes or no, I think we should lose the bold/italic formatting in the first two articles. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 17:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Cast (in order of appearance) ==
		+
		+	What is the policy in case a character is heard before he is seen, and other characters appear before him, but he does end up making an appearance? In [[Decemberweenvent Calendar (2022 Revisited)]], Strong Bad says the first spoken line, but he is not seen in the toon before Strong Mad and Strong Sad are, so there is some discrepancy about which order the characters should be listed in. I'm not immediately sure if there is a precedent for this happening outside of [[Marzipan's Answering Machine]], but it wouldn't surprise me if it has happened before. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 05:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Bleu Ninja: /**/Formatting tracklists on album articles

Bleu Ninja — Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:48:25 GMT

: Formatting tracklists on album articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:48, 30 July 2024
Line 234:		Line 234:

	There's not a noticeable trend to how these are treated, though it is somewhat more common for a person's description to include dates if they are deceased. In my opinion, for the purposes of this wiki it's better to simply reference the years/decades/era they were most well-known (e.g. Miranda performing from 1930s-50s, Gorbachev as head of state 1988-1991, Cobain as lead singer and guitarist of Nirvana 1987-1994) and simply indicate that a person is deceased by using past tense to describe them. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 19:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)		There's not a noticeable trend to how these are treated, though it is somewhat more common for a person's description to include dates if they are deceased. In my opinion, for the purposes of this wiki it's better to simply reference the years/decades/era they were most well-known (e.g. Miranda performing from 1930s-50s, Gorbachev as head of state 1988-1991, Cobain as lead singer and guitarist of Nirvana 1987-1994) and simply indicate that a person is deceased by using past tense to describe them. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 19:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Formatting tracklists on album articles ==
		+
		+	I've noticed a discrepancy in how we format the track listing on album articles:
		+	*[[Strong Bad Sings and Other Type Hits]] and [[Trogdor!! The Board Game Rulebook EP]] have '''the song name in bold''' and ''the artist italicized''.
		+	*[[Homestar Runner Original Soundtrack]] (all three volumes), [[Degradest Hits]], and [[Dangeresque: The Roomisode Triungulate Soundtrack]] do not format the song names in any way. Notably, every track on HSROST and DH is by the same artist.
		+	I'm not sure where the bold/italic formatting came from. In most listings of song information, the practice is either to put the song title "in quotes" (this is {{w\|WP:TRACKLISTING\|Wikipedia's policy}}, see tracks formatted as {{w\|Grease: The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture\|tabled}} or {{w\|Dirty Dancing (soundtrack)\|list}} as examples) or to not apply any special formatting to either song title or artist name (this is done [https://www.discogs.com/release/499618-Strong-Bad-Strong-Bad-Sings-And-Other-Type-Hits on Discogs], and is common across music streaming platforms). I think quotes could be useful, as we sometimes append information to a song's title {{--}} (hidden track) for instance {{--}} which can add ambiguity when some songs have parentheticals in their names ([[Everybody to the Limit (Live)]], [[Peasant Spawning (is Confusion)]]). Quotes or no, I think we should lose the bold/italic formatting in the first two articles. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 17:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The Cheatbot: autoreplace: TrogdorCon '97 → Trogdor Con '97

The Cheatbot — Sun, 06 Nov 2022 04:16:36 GMT

autoreplace: TrogdorCon '97 → Trogdor Con '97

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 6 November 2022
Line 104:		Line 104:
	When listing the official time (usually when it's wrong), it is more factual to use (actual) or ([[TV Time Toons Menu]])? Or should you only use the latter when the menu is correct? - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)		When listing the official time (usually when it's wrong), it is more factual to use (actual) or ([[TV Time Toons Menu]])? Or should you only use the latter when the menu is correct? - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
	:There seem to be a few precedents, based on [[Special:Whatlinkshere/TV Time Toons Menu]]:		:There seem to be a few precedents, based on [[Special:Whatlinkshere/TV Time Toons Menu]]:
-	:*[[Cheat Commandos (toon)]], [[TrogdorCon '97]], [[Happy Hallow-day]], [[business trip]], [[fan club]], [[shapeshifter]], [[Fan Costumes '08]], [[Dangeresque: Puppet Squad]], [[79 Seconds Left]] (with slight variation) and [[Halloween Safety]] all use "#:## [[TV Time Toons Menu\|official]], #:## actual", as did [[Which Ween Costumes?]] before it was edited yesterday.	+	:*[[Cheat Commandos (toon)]], [[Trogdor Con '97\|TrogdorCon '97]], [[Happy Hallow-day]], [[business trip]], [[fan club]], [[shapeshifter]], [[Fan Costumes '08]], [[Dangeresque: Puppet Squad]], [[79 Seconds Left]] (with slight variation) and [[Halloween Safety]] all use "#:## [[TV Time Toons Menu\|official]], #:## actual", as did [[Which Ween Costumes?]] before it was edited yesterday.
	:*The [[The House that Gave Sucky Treats\|three]] [[3 Times Halloween Funjob\|Halloween]] [[Halloween Potion-ma-jig\|toons]] with [[:Category:Toons with Dialogue Alternatives\|dialogue alternatives]] use "#:## ([[TV Time Toons Menu]]), #:## (Combined) (Actual)"		:*The [[The House that Gave Sucky Treats\|three]] [[3 Times Halloween Funjob\|Halloween]] [[Halloween Potion-ma-jig\|toons]] with [[:Category:Toons with Dialogue Alternatives\|dialogue alternatives]] use "#:## ([[TV Time Toons Menu]]), #:## (Combined) (Actual)"
	:*[[I Killed Pom Pom]] uses "#:## ([[TV Time Toons Menu]]), #:## ([[YouTube]])". The toons menu time seems correct or close enough so I think that qualifier should be removed.		:*[[I Killed Pom Pom]] uses "#:## ([[TV Time Toons Menu]]), #:## ([[YouTube]])". The toons menu time seems correct or close enough so I think that qualifier should be removed.

Bleu Ninja: /**/Standards for birth/death dates in costume explanations

Bleu Ninja — Wed, 02 Mar 2022 19:58:19 GMT

: Standards for birth/death dates in costume explanations

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 2 March 2022
Line 214:		Line 214:
	:Generally speaking, I think it's fine to {{p\|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Stinkoman_20X6_Level_10&diff=prev&oldid=792027 edit interviews for clarity}}, especially if the original was a transcription of speech and the transcriber was sloppy about it. If the original was more written than spoken (I'm not sure how to describe this, or whether it even applies to any of these articles), then I would tend to leave those articles as is. I'm not a big fan of visible ''sic''s. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 02:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)		:Generally speaking, I think it's fine to {{p\|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Stinkoman_20X6_Level_10&diff=prev&oldid=792027 edit interviews for clarity}}, especially if the original was a transcription of speech and the transcriber was sloppy about it. If the original was more written than spoken (I'm not sure how to describe this, or whether it even applies to any of these articles), then I would tend to leave those articles as is. I'm not a big fan of visible ''sic''s. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 02:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	::That makes sense. Generally I can't infer from a transcript if an interview was over phone/voice or text/email unless there are "(laughs)" or things like that. I tend to agree on [sic]s, they're best for comments<!-- like this --> rather than visible on the page. I think leaving them as-is is fine, then; unless it's becoming unreadable. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 03:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)		::That makes sense. Generally I can't infer from a transcript if an interview was over phone/voice or text/email unless there are "(laughs)" or things like that. I tend to agree on [sic]s, they're best for comments<!-- like this --> rather than visible on the page. I think leaving them as-is is fine, then; unless it's becoming unreadable. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 03:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Standards for birth/death dates in costume explanations ==
		+
		+	A lot of the characters' [[Halloween Costumes]] are real people, and it can be a bit tricky determining what information is relevant enough to fit on the explainer pages. I've noticed inconsistency on whether or not birth and/or death dates and years are included when discussing real-life figures. For example:
		+
		+	[[Homestarloween Party Costumes]]
		+	* Flavor Flav: no dates (alive)
		+	* Kurt Cobain: no dates (deceased)
		+	* Carmen Miranda: birth and death years only
		+	* Gorbachev: birth date (alive)
		+	[[Happy Hallow-day Costumes]]
		+	* Mario Batali: no dates (alive)
		+	* Frida Kahlo: birth and death dates
		+	* Queen Latifah: birth date (alive)
		+	[[The House That Gave Sucky Tricks Costumes]]
		+	* David Lee Roth: no dates (alive)
		+	* André 3000: no dates (alive)
		+	* Chuck Barris: birth and death years only
		+
		+	There's not a noticeable trend to how these are treated, though it is somewhat more common for a person's description to include dates if they are deceased. In my opinion, for the purposes of this wiki it's better to simply reference the years/decades/era they were most well-known (e.g. Miranda performing from 1930s-50s, Gorbachev as head of state 1988-1991, Cobain as lead singer and guitarist of Nirvana 1987-1994) and simply indicate that a person is deceased by using past tense to describe them. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 19:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Bleu Ninja: /* Interview transcripts - should we correct spelling? */

Bleu Ninja — Sat, 31 Jul 2021 03:17:47 GMT

Interview transcripts - should we correct spelling?

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:17, 31 July 2021
Line 213:		Line 213:
	So which is correct? Perhaps we ought to add a disclaimer "the following interview has been edited for clarity" or "spelling and punctuation are presented as-is from the original article"/"[sic]". --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 16:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)		So which is correct? Perhaps we ought to add a disclaimer "the following interview has been edited for clarity" or "spelling and punctuation are presented as-is from the original article"/"[sic]". --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 16:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:Generally speaking, I think it's fine to {{p\|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Stinkoman_20X6_Level_10&diff=prev&oldid=792027 edit interviews for clarity}}, especially if the original was a transcription of speech and the transcriber was sloppy about it. If the original was more written than spoken (I'm not sure how to describe this, or whether it even applies to any of these articles), then I would tend to leave those articles as is. I'm not a big fan of visible ''sic''s. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 02:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)		:Generally speaking, I think it's fine to {{p\|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Stinkoman_20X6_Level_10&diff=prev&oldid=792027 edit interviews for clarity}}, especially if the original was a transcription of speech and the transcriber was sloppy about it. If the original was more written than spoken (I'm not sure how to describe this, or whether it even applies to any of these articles), then I would tend to leave those articles as is. I'm not a big fan of visible ''sic''s. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 02:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
		+	::That makes sense. Generally I can't infer from a transcript if an interview was over phone/voice or text/email unless there are "(laughs)" or things like that. I tend to agree on [sic]s, they're best for comments<!-- like this --> rather than visible on the page. I think leaving them as-is is fine, then; unless it's becoming unreadable. --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 03:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It's dot com: /* Interview transcripts - should we correct spelling? */ reply

It's dot com — Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:09:17 GMT

Interview transcripts - should we correct spelling?: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 31 July 2021
Line 212:		Line 212:

	So which is correct? Perhaps we ought to add a disclaimer "the following interview has been edited for clarity" or "spelling and punctuation are presented as-is from the original article"/"[sic]". --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 16:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)		So which is correct? Perhaps we ought to add a disclaimer "the following interview has been edited for clarity" or "spelling and punctuation are presented as-is from the original article"/"[sic]". --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 16:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
		+	:Generally speaking, I think it's fine to {{p\|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Stinkoman_20X6_Level_10&diff=prev&oldid=792027 edit interviews for clarity}}, especially if the original was a transcription of speech and the transcriber was sloppy about it. If the original was more written than spoken (I'm not sure how to describe this, or whether it even applies to any of these articles), then I would tend to leave those articles as is. I'm not a big fan of visible ''sic''s. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 02:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Bleu Ninja: /**/Interview transcripts - should we correct spelling?

Bleu Ninja — Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:27:11 GMT

: Interview transcripts - should we correct spelling?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 30 July 2021
Line 184:		Line 184:
	:I think if it really is ''nowhere'' else (except archive.org, is that what you're saying?), then there's really no problem putting it here. Nobody involved in those old sites is likely to object, and if they did, we'd simply take it down. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)		:I think if it really is ''nowhere'' else (except archive.org, is that what you're saying?), then there's really no problem putting it here. Nobody involved in those old sites is likely to object, and if they did, we'd simply take it down. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
	::Makes sense to me. (and yes, archive.org is the only remainder of that post) --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 22:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)		::Makes sense to me. (and yes, archive.org is the only remainder of that post) --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 22:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Interview transcripts - should we correct spelling? ==
		+
		+	As I'm cleaning up older interview pages, I noticed inconsistent correction of interviewer's spelling, capitalization, grammar, etc.
		+
		+	For example, [https://web.archive.org/web/20020623163502/http://www.wtfiml33t.com/viewarticle.php?artid=59&page=1 the wtfiml33t interview] {{inlinecontentwarning}} on the original site read like this:
		+
		+	<blockquote>'''Stephan:''' State your name for the record please<br>
		+	'''Mike Chapman:''' Mike Chapman!!<br>
		+	'''Stephan:''' how long has homestarrunner.com been up<br>
		+	'''Mike Chapman:''' since January of 2000. A nice clean starting point.</blockquote>
		+
		+	In the [[l33t Interview]] article, the wiki cleans up punctuation and capitalization:
		+
		+	<blockquote>'''STEPHAN:''' State your name for the record, please.<br>
		+	'''MIKE CHAPMAN:''' Mike Chapman!<br>
		+	'''STEPHAN:''' How long has homestarrunner.com been up?<br>
		+	'''MIKE CHAPMAN:''' Since January of 2000. A nice clean starting point.</blockquote>
		+
		+	The [https://web.archive.org/web/20030130071113/http://rundevilrun.com/ezine/interviews/hsrunner/ Run Devil Run] interview has a few typos (notably "Strongbad", but "cartoon network" is not capitalized elsewhere):
		+
		+	<blockquote>C>_Did you ever have any idea Strongbad would receive the level of popularity that he has?</blockquote>
		+
		+	In [[Run Devil Run Interview\|the article]], only the "speaker's name in all-caps, bolded, followed by a colon" formatting is changed, the actual content is unedited:
		+
		+	<blockquote>'''NEUTRON:''' Did you ever have any idea Strongbad would receive the level of popularity that he has?</blockquote>
		+
		+	So which is correct? Perhaps we ought to add a disclaimer "the following interview has been edited for clarity" or "spelling and punctuation are presented as-is from the original article"/"[sic]". --{{User:Bleu Ninja/sig}} 16:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Defender1031: /* Retroactive names in transcripts */ agree with Dot com

Defender1031 — Wed, 01 Jan 2020 01:30:59 GMT

Retroactive names in transcripts: agree with Dot com

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 1 January 2020
Line 130:		Line 130:
	::::{{p\|l={{FULLURL:bottom 10\|diff=788636&oldid=788633}} Another edit was made}} regarding retroactive names. Does anyone else have an opinion? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 23:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)		::::{{p\|l={{FULLURL:bottom 10\|diff=788636&oldid=788633}} Another edit was made}} regarding retroactive names. Does anyone else have an opinion? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 23:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I lean toward not using retroactive names. The events in each toon and from one toon to the next happen in an order, and I think it's fine to preserve that in the transcript. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)		:::::I lean toward not using retroactive names. The events in each toon and from one toon to the next happen in an order, and I think it's fine to preserve that in the transcript. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
		+	::::::I agree, the transcripts should reflect the progression of the homestar universe as it was created rather than applying later information retroactively. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

	== @StrongBadActual Dates ==		== @StrongBadActual Dates ==

It's dot com: /* Retroactive names in transcripts */ lean toward not

It's dot com — Tue, 31 Dec 2019 23:38:18 GMT

Retroactive names in transcripts: lean toward not

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 31 December 2019
Line 129:		Line 129:
	:::That's beside the point. It could be an active user who just happened to make an edit from that IP. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 14:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)		:::That's beside the point. It could be an active user who just happened to make an edit from that IP. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 14:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
	::::{{p\|l={{FULLURL:bottom 10\|diff=788636&oldid=788633}} Another edit was made}} regarding retroactive names. Does anyone else have an opinion? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 23:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)		::::{{p\|l={{FULLURL:bottom 10\|diff=788636&oldid=788633}} Another edit was made}} regarding retroactive names. Does anyone else have an opinion? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 23:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
		+	:::::I lean toward not using retroactive names. The events in each toon and from one toon to the next happen in an order, and I think it's fine to preserve that in the transcript. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

	== @StrongBadActual Dates ==		== @StrongBadActual Dates ==