HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 22:01, 24 January 2007

"Da Basement" redirects here. For the the basement featured in Homestar Runner toons, see Strong Bad's Basement.

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.

Featured mark?

Shouldn't we have something on a page that tells you it is/was a featured article (like the star on Wikipedia, or the alternate "Featured" logo on Uncyclopedia)? ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page of every featured article there is the {{featuredarticle}} template. — Lapper (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, because I didn't see one on Strong Mad. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 19:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on Talk:Strong Mad. —BazookaJoe 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that The Mu's idea is good. It would give a quick indication of a featured article. I think something like Wikipedia's bronze star (see Wikipedia:Automatic number plate recognition for an example) would be good. It's non-instrusive and informative. - Super Sam 10:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at {{featuredicon}}... the results of me experimenting with the Wikipedia template... phlip ^T_C 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with marking our articles as featured, especially in the main namespace, not because the star isn't clever—it's plenty clever—but because we are so cavalier about which articles we choose. I am not saying that we should choose articles differently. We have a style of choosing that works for us. What I am saying is that it doesn't lend itself to permanent recognition. For example, today's featured article is the TV Time Toons Menu, which is interesting, but hardly an example of "one of the best articles produced by the Homestar Runner community." — It's dot com 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Our method of choosing articles has little to do with whether or not they're among our finest articles. Rather, we have certain sequences to follow (such as featuring all the main characters) and we like to stick in other things that are major sections of or toons on the H*R.com itself. I don't think we should use that star. Heimstern Läufer 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

True... I thought the same thing when {{featuredarticle}} was being put on talk pages... we're not Wikipedia, which can have a new FA every day and still only pick the cream of the crop... we're limited by the number of articles we have. Looking back, the majority of the FA's are about an interesting aspect of H*R, rather than a necessarily good page on HRWiki (though the former can help with the latter, if only because it directs more eyes to the page). This is kinda why I didn't start putting {{featuredicon}} on pages... phlip ^T_C

I have the same problem with {{featuredarticle}} on talk pages, but there's just not ever been a good time to bring it up. At the very least, that template needs to be reworded. — It's dot com 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree and agree. —BazookaJoe 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The verbiage of {{featuredarticle}} was mentioned during the HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/General Discussion#Featured Template and HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive 2#Daily Features discussions, but never addressed. I think it could be reworded. -- Tom 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And the recent change looks great! -- Tom 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(Referring to the link Tom just posted) I changed the image and reworded the template. In both cases I tried to capture the essence of our selection process. — It's dot com 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I also find that the new template better exemplifies our process of choosing featured articles. — Lapper (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

When I first made it, I just copied from Wikipedia. But now it realy have that HRWiki feel to it. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still like the star better. --Trogga 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Without star, nothin'. The one big reason to place a badge in the upper-right corner of each featured article, regardless of what anyone might say, is that otherwise, it looks like nobody on the wiki knows how. You don't want that. — Darth Katana X ( )

I disagree. The fact that someone might think we lack wiki savvy is no reason to wield it in ways we do not need. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

With the star, people can see that this is a featured article without goin' to the talk page. --Trogga 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not all that important to know if something's a featured article... as discussed above, if an article is featured it says more about the topic than it does about the article itself. phlip ^T_C 12:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But we gotta look legit, man! Even if the featured articles aren't anything to write home about, that doesn't mean a badge isn't in order. — Darth Katana X ( )

The reason Wikipedia has stars is because there are tons and tons of pages about all sorts of things, and tons of vandals, and the pages can't be monitored and worked on by the entire community, so when one article is very good it deserves a marking. This isn't how we do it here, and because it's a smaller space based on one thing, every page is about on the same level of quality. I'm fine with the tag on the talk page. Salty^Talk! 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is still confusing, just like the reasoning for calling the Fhqwhgads Robot "Visor Robot" back then. No offense, but why not just do it? Are you doing this for yourself or the user, anyway? Most regular users wouldn't waste their time on talk pages, because if you're not a member of the community, it's irrelevant (I know I don't look at talk pages to wikis I don't contribute to). Besides, we could make a star like the one on Homestar's shirt. That would be cute and clever. — Darth Katana X ( )

But it's also irrelevant to a casual reader which pages are featured and which aren't. To a casual reader, knowing which pages have been featured gives no information about the topic, or the quality of the page – all it says is that we think the topic is interesting. This is unlike Wikipedia where a featured star means that the article is high quality, which is useful information for researchers using Wikipedia as a source... but it carries no such weight here. phlip ^T_C 04:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I still think we need one. Not having one just makes the wiki look like a n00b community. — Darth Katana X ( )

Putting stars just for stars' sake is making us look like a n00b community. And the wiki would eventually look like Strong Bad's webpage. Loafing 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that doing what need not be done is a hopeless waste of time. Also, why would the reader care that we think this or that is important? Don't talk down to them. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

IRC scheduled chats

I propose that we put the scheduled chat notice back in the sitenotice, as it was up until November, at which point it was apparently taken down due to spamming issues. However, with very few outright spamming attacks, the most recent being of a recently blocked user, who was subsequently banned without issue, the channel has no reason not to be advertised. In fact, it has reason for to be advertised, what with the unsatisfyingly low average user count. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets nostalgic about those friendly Mondays and Fridays. — Lapper (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for putting the notice up every now and then. —BazookaJoe 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sysop Nominations

Is there an open sysop nomination page? Just wondering. -- Super Martyo boing! 04:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, we only add sysops when we think that we need them. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see here. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  09:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Question From a Sysop Wannabe

Dear Sysops,

How would you get to be a sysop? I was also wondering if anyone could help me learn html (Okay, I'll learn HTML on my own....). Any help?? Please??

Sysop Wannabe,

Unme93 ^T/_C

Read this. --Jay (Gobble) 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Audio Articles

While reading Swears out loud with a very bad English accent for my own weird amusment, I had an idea: How about we have audio versions (.ogg) of featured articles? Wikipedia have those and I think we should also. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Although this would certainly be entertaining, I question the practicality of having audio versions of our articles. What is Wikipedia's reason for having them? Accessibility? — Lapper (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really accessibility, but that's still a minor reason. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia#Benefits for the full list. I don't think it would work too well for us though, as we have significantly less content that it could be done with and those articles change quite a bit. But hey, if you want to record it for kicks and see how many laughs you get, it might be funny. -- Tom 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I'll do it. I'll read Homestar Runner (Flash cartoon) and upload the ogg to the wiki, use it, delete it, it's up to you. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, crap. The microphone part of my audio card is busted, so I can't record anything for a while. Anyone else wants to do it? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'll do it. A bonus for those who don't join our Skype calls. I'm afraid I don't have the means to convert it to vorbis, though. Perhaps someone can change it later. I'll start tomorrow. — Lapper (talk)

If you want, you can send me the file in any format you'd like and I'll turn it to .ogg — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Audacity. It's free and has the capability to export as Ogg Vorbis. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was going to use. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oop. I was talking to Lapper. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote Rogue Leader to do the talking. :) (Seriously, if you haven't heard his voice, make it your goal to do so. It's awesome.) —FireBird|Talk 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely and utterly agree! Someone who is not a ruler of a variation of thieves

Why, thank you kind annony who is in no way not me or my computer obsessed sister. I wouldn't mind doing it. My voice does kick butt! Rogue Leader / (my talk) 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rogue, you're completely insane and obsessed with your own voice. Which, by the way, can't actually be "handome". I'm sure your sister had a fun time typing into the computer-box, as well. — Lapper (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you guys. The first spoken article is online [1]. It's not quite a featured article, but an... erm.. important part of the wiki nonetheless. Also, notice the new template that goes on the description of the media file. We should set up a page, describing how to create and label spoken articles. And we might want to put something in place for claiming an article. Phlip nearly recorded Homestar Runner (Flash cartoon), not knowing that Lapper had already done that. Loafing 11:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm going to have to interject on that one. Homestar Runner (flash cartoon) is actually first, in that (a) it's an article, and (b) the only reason it hasn't been uploaded yet is a restriction on server upload size. It should be done by this afternoon. — Lapper (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For the actual cartoons, we could capture the audio and then record the actions in between pauses. And Loafing, your voice sounds funny. :-P ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 02:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems E.L. Cool came up with two ideas at the same time; one of them flourishing, and one of them being quickly forgotten. I guess this project may have to wait for its turn. — Lapper (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the new subtitles project doesn't mean this one have to stop. If my sound card wasn't busted then we would already have the first spoken article. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How would one get an ogg player? --Dacheatbot · Communicate 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this page. Trey56 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I should probably get around to uploading this. It's been sitting around in my Documents folder for like two months now. — Lapper (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Project page: HRWiki:Spoken Articles. Loafing 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get us mixed up

Just so no one gets confused, I thought I'd explicitly mention that I'm setting up an account for my wife, Janene. She has volunteered to help handle some of the proprietor responsibilities around here like updating the ledger and activating forum accounts when we receive COPPA forms. I don't anticipate her doing much more than that, but in order for her to do these things I have granted her the sysop and proprietor roles here on the wiki and will grant her administrative privileges on the forum when I set her up over there. Her username is JaneneDay, and I'm sure she would appreciate a warm welcome, which I have no doubt will happen mere seconds after I post this. In fact, someone may notice her new account and welcome her before I've even posted this. You guys are always on the ball. Oh, and sorry I haven't been around much. I have more time on my hands now and would like to get more involved again, but I'd also like to get the Homestar Runner Network off the ground, so I may end up using my time over there. At any rate, I'm starting to miss all you crazy people. Cheers! — Joey (talk·edits) 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It'll be great to have such a well-known new user on HRWiki, and I'm proud to have made such a welcome. I'm sure Janene (or JaneneDay) will be warmly regarded. We miss you, too, Joey. — Lapper (talk)

Now we can truly say that the HRWiki is a family-run business. :-D ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joey. Hi Janene. —BazookaJoe 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed Janene from the sysop group. The permissions for the proprietor role have been modified so that she has exactly the access she needs to do the paperwork she'll be doing without any additional privileges she doesn't need. You should still welcome her, though, of course. ;) — Joey (talk·edits) 03:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Subtitles

Some of us have started working on subtitling Homestar Runner Flash cartoons to make them accessible to a wider audience. I would like to know what the HRWiki folks think about this. Should this be a part of the knowledge base wiki? Should it be separate? Would you help? The subtitles are based on the transcripts from the wiki, so there is a strong connection already. The subtitles project is still beta, but it should work with Firefox and Internet Explorer. Most subtitles have been donated by Phlip from an older project, and I and Elcool have done the international ones. Check it out and let us know. Loafing 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally know one person who'd be interested in that... --Jay (Gobble) 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support having some way to intergrate the subtitles files into the wiki. As a non-native speaker sometimes I need to go over the wiki transcript just to see what a word or two means. This way , it's already inside the toon window itself. Also, we could open the door for people with hearing problems who still want experiance Homestar Runner like the rest of us. Some flash artists like Weeble from Weeble and Bob and the people behind Too Much Spare Time Animation have already added subtitles to some of their toons. So If TBC aren't going to do it themselvs, we are here for them. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The .xml file for Exp Film's Commentary doesn't work. --Jay (Gobble) 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, fixed the link. Also, listening to the commentary is currently not possible anyway, because of Flash security measures :-/ And I forgot to upload the experiment film subs, will have to wait until I'm back home. Loafing 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We need this in the Greasemonkey script, pronto. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 02:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I showed it to the person I previously alluded. The biggest reason I got into H*R in the first place was because it allowed me to share the gift of Homestar with this person, who cannot hear. She says she likes the subtitled stuff better than the Wiki. "But no offense." --Jay (Gobble) 03:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you just made my day :-D  Loafing 05:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Deaf watchers, eh? I'd assume captions, as opposed to subtitles would be more important then, yes? (For the uninitiated: subtitles transcribe the words, captions transcribe all the sound effects too.) phlip ^T_C 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Take 'em as they come. --Jay (Gobble) 05:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's just say, hypothetically, I wanted to make one of these. How would I get the frame numbers to start/stop each line on? And how would I test it? --Jay (Gobble) 06:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We haven't quite worked out the standards for subtitles/captions yet, so the format may change a little. But if you want to try it now, then here's how you do it: You need Phlip's Firefox Greasemonkey script. This will give you a seek bar for Flash toons from Homestarrunner.com. It also displays the current frame number. Then you grab one of the XML files from the subtitle site, scoop it empty, and use it as a skeleton. You probably also want to copy the text of the transcript into this file and split it up into short sections or sentences that you want to display as one title. Then use the seekbar to find the first and last frame numbers for each of the sections. It gets easy after you've done it once or twice. And you get to know the toon pretty well. Also note that each character has his or her own colour code. I'll put a page online soon with some more detailed hints, and I'll come up with a way of testing the titles. — I'm still not sure where to put the page with instructions. Do people believe this should be an HRWiki project, or should it be separate?  Loafing 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the frame numbers, I'd pretty much figured that all out. I have the beginnings of a Halloween Potion-ma-jig .xml file, but without frame numbers. --Jay (Gobble) 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sound promising :-) I'll come up with a test page soon(ish). And you've heard that before, but... you should really be on IRC ;-)  Loafing 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never successfully managed to join IRC when a useful conversation is taking place. Plus, I have issues getting to it. --Jay (Gobble) 06:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright you guys, I finished the .XML file for Cool Tapes. Ding! ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Is there a talk page specifically for this project? I thought of some things to discuss, but we'd flood Da Basement. I think there should be some sort of central Wiki page for this project, even if it's in a User space. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood for IRC right now, but I figured I'd give an update. I have all of the text in my .xml file. I do not, however, have any frame numbers past the three Coach Z/Pom Pom scenarios. --Jay (Gobble) 06:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Qermaq: Asked and ye shall recieve. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the gamut of styles

Discussion moved to HRWiki talk:Logo redesign 2006.

Preserve birthday card as part of the history

I think Invisible Robot Fish did an outstanding job on Matt's birthday card. Above and beyond the call of duty here. The finished product is a sight to behold. As such, I think it and the work that went into it should have a page and a link in the history, like, say, HRWiki:Matt's 2006 birthday card. — It's dot com 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Third'd! Loafing 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Four! uhh... d'd.-- »Bleed0range« 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Trey56 04:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I think we might do something like this again. Do we want to create a new page for each birthday card type thing, or should we put them all on one page? Loafing 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I say, let's cross that bridge when we come to it; it might be nice to take it in a little bit of a different direction next year (not necessarily gluing Matt's hands to his butt, but maybe something other than another card). Assuming this does become a yearly thing, then we probably will want to find a way to organize whatever greetings we choose to do... Trey56 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gluing his hands to his butt sure got my vote! Oh wait, he can't make toons then. Scrap that! Loafing 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Wow, I had overlooked this section of Da Basement. I'm glad that you guys appreciated my work. I feel so...imortalized. I R F 14:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we save the external images of people's sigs just incase they are deleted on that person's personal external page? I R F 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. We can always save a sig as handsome as mine for later. — Lapper (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Policy

As discussed on Talk:Homestar's Fashion Sense, I feel the need for a deletion policy. We don't have one, and articles such as Marshie's Mother and jumbo/LARGE seem to pop up at every new email or toon (don't call me a hypocrite because I created that last one). They are short, one-toon-specific, and quite useless. The talk pages of these articles are usually filled with debate over whether to keep them or not, but it's not very organized and it's hard to tell when to pull the plug on an article. What I'm suggesting is a STUFF-like template that can be pulled out in situations like these so that these mini-articles may be dealt with faster. Thoughts? -Brightstar Shiner 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I feel that formally voting on things should be reserved as a last resort. Perhaps more important than a formal process would be some guidelines as to what definitely merits a page and what definitely does not. Forming such a policy would serve the dual purpose of giving sysops an easier decision in whether a page should be deleted, as well as inform new page creators of what will not be accepted. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  19:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy, guidelines, you know what I mean. But seriously, guidelines is a better idea. That way, it will serve the purpose I'm hoping to get across and be accessable before somebody creates one of those articles! Cool. -Brightstar Shiner 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We do have a deletion policy, which is clearly laid out at HRWiki:Deletion Policy, stating in part "Pages clearly unrelated to Homestar Runner [should be deleted]", and otherwise should be voted upon for deletion if clearly not up to snuff. One-time articles are clearly a part of this wiki, whether we like it or not. — Lapper (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, non-H*R makes for pretty clear deletion material. What's sometimes dicier is whether something should get its own page or be part of a larger one. And yes, I think laying out a little more formally where we stand would be good—but it would also be difficult. Some time ago, like a year or summat, there was a big "merge vs. delete" craze. Personally, I really, really have mixed feelings. On the one hand, wiki is not paper, so there's no functional reason not to have a page for every little doo-dad. On the other hand, I always lament the idea of there being pages that no one would ever find without searching specifically for them. Plus it gets more unwieldy: more pages to patrol and more likelihood that substandard wikiwriting could slip past unnoticed; also, if the doo-dad shows up again later, it can be hard to remember that its page existed and update it. Like I say... mixed feelings. Maybe a starting point would be to say that a page should not exist if it doesn't offer a unique opportunity to expound on its topic in ways that aren't possible in other pages. —AbdiViklas 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

edit conned That deletion policy gives us nothing when we try to figure out if Marshie's Mother, jumbo/LARGE, Coach Z Ale, Jobar's Big Ol' Headache Medicine, Marzipan's Purse, and The Poopsmith's Shovel are worthy articles. The final decisions from the process are mostly good (the majority can't go wrong, right??), but it's highly irregular and not all articles are treated fairly. The fact that everyone has said that we need a deletion policy for so long, yet nobody has done it, shows how difficult it is to figure some guidelines out. The "keep" threshold is always different for an article about a character, a pseudocharacter, a product, a magazine, a foodstuff, an inside joke, an electronic item, a clothing item, a fictional band, a TV show, a movie, a book, or a computer program, and everybody has a different idea on where the threshold should be. There are also those ambiguous factors of how many appearances there are and how important the item was in the toon. Obviously the current deletion policy is not cut out for helping us decide these things. —BazookaJoe 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, we should stop fidgeting around and figure something out. Let's lay out some good guidelines for all to use, because the current deletion policy isn't cutting it. -Brightstar Shiner 21:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the current unwritten rule regarding such things as running gags is a three use rule. Once isn't noteworthy, twice is a Fun Fact, and thrice usually warrants a page. This doesn't really clarify such instances as the various items however, nor does it work for characters, which usually get a page if they are seen, and especially if they are part of a group of established characters (Such as the recent creation of the Old-Timey Alien page, and to a more questionable extent, Don Knotts). However I do not belive these rules are written in stone anywhere, and I think it would be difficult to do so, since the fact is the lines between keep and delete are usually grey ones, it's rarely a case of black and white. In my opinion I think the status quo is working relatively well, though I'm rarely the first to suggest radical change. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we are be aiming for a radical change. We just want to figure down some guidelines about what a certain type of article should be judged upon. For instance, TBird's first sentence about running gags is something that people already agree on, so we may as well write that down in the Deletion Policy while we're thinking about it. (*Waits for someone to jump at the opportunity*) —BazookaJoe 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Even that rule, however, is not without it's loopholes. Instances such as "Homestar Running up a hill", though perhaps having happened three or more times, doesn't really warrant a page of its own, which is where the majority vote usually comes in. What's to say that doesn't warrant a page, whereas "Bubs Running", "Homsar's Walking Noise", or Marzipan Playing a Flute" might? Granted, that falls more in the question of "what is a running gag", rather than "when does a running gag get its own page", but it all falls under the larger banner of "when does a page get deleted or not?", which as I stated before isn't really an easy policy to nail down in writing. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a running gag (and to a lesser extant an inside joke) is being discussed in HRWiki:RG, although it's dormant at the moment. Here are some of my personal guidelines on whether to delete a page or not:

1. On supposed running gags page - Need at least three appearances on canon Homestar Runner toons and is spacial in some way to the Homestar Runner world in contrast to the real world.
2. On general items, actions or animals that does not relate to one another such as Pizza or Explosions - Need at least five to ten appearance (depending how general or common it is in the real world) on canon Homestar Runner toons.
3. On item pages - Need only one appearance on canon Homestar Runner toons, as long as it played some sort of role in the plot and not just a background item. Any item that is part of a character's outfit (Coach Z's Z, The Poopsmith's Shovel) does not merit a page and could be integrated into that character's biography page.
4. On character pages - Need only one appearance on canon Homestar Runner toons, as not as it is not a minor variation on one of the already established characters, a character in a costume or a different personality of that character. Movie and theatric character play characters are en exception.
5. Other pages - Any repeating, dominant or part of the canon Homestar Runner toons that could not be fitted into the toon's page as a fun fact (The Periodic Table of Candy Elements), part of the transcript (Experimental Film Visuals) or Easter egg (Strumstar Hammer) are allowed.

When discussing on articles nominated for deletion, I look for those guidelines for help. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 12:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And those are very good personal rules that could be integrated into the guidelines we're thinking about. To people that are saying this is a "gray area", I believe that's exactly what we're trying to fill in with our page. I suggest that all of us share our personal tactics for situations like these, such as E.L. Cool did, and we can pick, choose, and mesh them all together for the final product. Sound good? Here are mine:

1. Email-specific articles: Very minor characters, items, sayings, or places do not merit a page. If it was a major part of the email or toon, yes or maybe.
2. Articles with a character's name in the title: Usually merge with character page unless it is/becomes a running gag.
3. Spam, Spam, and more Spam: Obviously delete.
4. All Articles: If no more than five lines of text can be used to describe the subject, delete or merge. -Brightstar Shiner 21:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered this thread as I was about to begin an identical one. As someone who's created a couple very minor, deleteable articles in the last couple days, I sense a strong need to establish some guidelines. And I think it's okay to be specific about the number of appearances necessary for a kind of item to get its own article — we can still be flexible and decide on an article's merit by voting, but establishing guidelines will prevent many of the wrong articles from being created in the first place. I personally like E.L. Cool's suggestions very much (Brightstar, yours are good too, but his are a bit more specific). Trey56 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this again! I was beginning to think this was a lost cause, but maybe it could really happen! I know E. L. Cool's guidelines were better than mine; I just wanted to put my own personal ones up. Pages like this one, this one, and this one just bother me beyond reason. Also this one here, but nobody agreed with me about that. Anyway, way too many small, useless articles are being created every day and we need some set guidelines to deal with them. Now, I'm not saying every one of these should be promptly deleted/merged/whatever else, I'm just saying that we need something to refer to so heated arguments don't erupt (at least as often) in regards to what should be done with said small, insignifigant article. -Brightstar Shiner 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I like EL's list, this one here is a good example of why even with a list we need to realize there's a need to discuss most any article that may be put up for deletion no matter the rules. I wouldn't mind having more "rules" as to what is suggested to be set to pending deletion or what's expected of a new article. On the other hand there are a number of pages that are out there that I could see these suggestions bringing up for deletion, and while some of them maybe should go away. But there is still debate to be had as to is something a gag, an important item, if it should be merged with something else. etc. etc. Also, we need to continue to realize that "once deleted, always deleted" is not a rule. There may be a better way to make an article, or a reason for it's existence that has not been thought of before, or additional appearances, or any number of possible reasons. I just want to make sure we know exactly what we want a policy to do, and that we word it as such with thought given to possible ramifications. - ISTC 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A Vandal?

72.130.213.123 seems to be doing mostly bad edits. Should they be banned? Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn, although I guess you can't speak out of turn on a message board, right? I mean when's your turn, it's not 'til you reply. - Point7Q 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, they've made one edit, which wasn't all that bad. I hardly think a block is needed. --DorianGray

Look to 70.64.178.238 for an example of blockable behavior. A simple bad edit is not necessarily vandalism. Also, blocking anonymous IPs is not a routine activity as many IPs are temporary - an appreciable block on an IP can potentially affect many innocent users. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection implemented

Back in March is was discussed that semi-protection would be a good idea to deter most main page template vandalism. This semi-protection has now been implemented for both Whatsnew and the current featured article. This will prevent anonymous users and recently created user accounts from editing. A section further explaining this will be added to HRWiki:Protected page, which is linked to when a user attempts to edit a protected page. We would appreciate your thoughts on whether we should disclose on that page the exact amount of time it takes before a new user is able to edit. Thanks, BazookaJoe 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the exact amount of time is 28 hours. The number was chosen intentionally to be just a little more than exactly one day. In addition, all page moves are disabled during this period, regardless of the protected status of a page. — It's dot com 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The two sides to the argument are pretty much equal, from what I can see.

• Point: New users may be frustrated to find they can't move or edit certain pages, and then not know why they can't do so. It's only natural to place such information in a readily visible area.
• Counterpoint: Few new users are knowledgeable enough to know how or to have a reason to move pages or edit semi-protected pages in their first 28 hours; therefore, it wouldn't have an impact on them.
• Point: As this time-limitation would generally only thwart the casual vandal, said vandal would probably have no reason to check HRWiki:Protected page for information; the disclosure is safe there.
• Counterpoint: Even a casual vandal would come across the link to HRWiki:Protected page quickly, scan the page for information, and have no problem waiting 28 hours until he or she can vandalize to his or her heart's content.

In any case, I'm leaning towards opposed. I don't think we need this clause at HRWiki:Protected page. — Lapper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather have a brief explanation on that page. We don't have so many vandals that we need to worry about it too much, and I don't want to give real new users the impression that editing here is harder than it actually is. I don't think we need to mention the exact duration, though. Loafing 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lapper's point that vandals would check the HRWiki:Protected page to see how long they'd have to wait, I propose we just use language like "semi-protection prevents all unregistered or recently registered users from editing a page" and not include the exact time limit. -- Tom 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's also bear in mind that this will not stop vandalism, it will simply make it more of a bother to vandalize certain key pages. A casual vandal will simply do what he can, perhaps to another page, and a dedicated vandal will figure it out and do it no matter what we do to try to stop him. But this would provide a certain level of insurance against high-visibility or mission-critical areas from being compromised. That's probably a good thing. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments: the semi-protection is a good idea, but no need to disclose the exact length of time. Trey56 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree: Semi-protection should be mentioned, as we are an honorable wiki that does not lie to its users. Furthermore, semi-protection should be included on high visibility HRWiki pages such as The Stick. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)