HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 21:24, 15 October 2007

Where all the cool guys hang out

Welcome to Da Basement! This is a messageboard for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the Homestar Runner Wiki. Although it is aimed mostly at sysops, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

If you have a question regarding how to become a sysop, please read through the FAQ beforehand.

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! -- 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. -- 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? -- 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. -- 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. -- 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)

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) — ^Sam_{Fisher (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)  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. — ^Sam_{Fisher (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)  21:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's much better! this is awesome! ^{The Goblin!!} 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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)  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 ^T_C 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)

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. -- 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)  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 Mü _{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)

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)

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)