Talk:Main Page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 04:31, 7 February 2007

H*R Reference In New Book

I just started reading the latest from one of my favorite authors, Orson Scott Card. It's called Empire, and page 19 begins thusly:

"My head a-splode," said one of the wittier students, and everyone laughed again.

Can it be agreed upon that this is a bonafied reference? I was wondering if there's a place on this website to record this type of thing. -TDK 14:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a direct reference to me. It would go on one of the Sightings pages, probably Other Sightings, since we don't have a Book Sightings page. Trey56 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I think it's a reference. TheYellowDart—(t/c)

I don't think TBC got it from this, but it's definetly a reference. -Brightstar Shiner 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if TBC got it from something, they would be referring to it. We're looking at a sighting here, not a reference. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts Noted in Summaries and Posts

Can I just mention how un-useful some edit summaries are? I mean, it's good that you use an edit summary, but we should always try to make them meaningful.

Specifically, stuff like "Edit Conflict x2" or similar are not good edit summaries. We all get them, big deal. What is the nature of the edit you finally got on the wiki? A typo fix? A reply? An agreement/disagreement? I'm not intending to point to anyone in particular - I see these often from a lot of people.

On a tangental but related topic: what is the purpose of inticating in bold letters at the start of a Talk post that you were edit conflicted? Is there a meaningful reason to do this that I'm missing? Or is just unnecessary clutter on the page? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was doing that automatically._LordQuackingstick 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time you need to mention being edit conflicted is if your message has changed because of what's mentioned when you got conflicted. Or something. --DorianGray

If, as a result of an edit conflict, my talk post doesn't follow the one immediately preceding it, I usually mark it as an edit conflict so people know that the post was meant to come right after a different post than it actually comes after. Otherwise, it's not really necessary. Heimstern Läufer 00:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other point: Using "edit conflict" as an edit summary is not so useful. It doesn't let one know anything about the nature of your edit. Heimstern Läufer 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both of Heimstern's points. (even if I did the second recently) - ISTC 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't saying "In response to Heimstern's 00:28 post" (as I am here) be a more clear way to indicate this than mentioning the edit conflict? I mean, in this case, my post is separated from the one I want to reply to since other posts have occurred and there's no convenient way to insert this into the above without disrupting other trains of thought, not due to an edit conflict. Why not take a similar route with edit-conflicted replies, which are essentially subject to that exact same issue? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been saying this for a while now. Noting an edit conflict in the actual wiki text should be a last resort. Upon being edit-conflicted, one should ask, does my post still flow with the other posts? Does the fact that I got a conflict need to be pointed out? Is there any way I can rephrase what I wrote to make it fit better? Yes, rephrasing does take a little more time and effort, and occasionally someone beats you to the punch and says what you were going to say. When that happens to me, sometimes I just let the other person's post speak for me. — It's dot com 00:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Qermaq: I don't think it's even necessary to be that verbose. I often just address the person I'm replying to, like here, when I'm replying to the last post a person made. — It's dot com 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed, in most cases that level of precision would not be needed. But I wanted to illustrate how simple it would be, and how much more meaning it brings to a post than noting that the edit faced a conflict. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Virus

Hey, what's with the virus pic all over da place? Is it possible that we have a haxor among us?--Marvelrulez

A template was briefly vandalized to include this image. It's fixed now. Heimstern Läufer 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Weeklies?

Anyone think it's time to archive the Sketchbook, Fanstuff, and Quote of the Week? meaning, move the 2006 entries to a seperate 2006 archive? I was wondering why it hadn't been done yet. - Dr. Clash (how do you people know the exact time you posted to put it after your name, anyway?)

I agree. You put a timestamp after your name by signing with four tildes. These things: ~~~~—Shwoo 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think that sounds reasonable. Agreeing with what Shwoo said, type three tildes (~~~) to leave just your signature, and leave four tildes (~~~~) to leave your signature plus a timestamp. Incidentally, five tildes leaves a timestamp only. Trey56 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Phew! I'm glad the Quotes don't need archiving, anyway... Dr. Clash 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They look great — good work! Trey56 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page image

Hey I was wondering, why did you change that image on the front page? It wasn't because I put it there, was it? I thought the Bubs image was good. TheYellowDart—(t/c) 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bubs image is a spoiler (it reveals the main joke of the toon). Spoilers should not be on the main page, and so I switched it with a unique image from the toon that doesn't give anything away. — It's dot com 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit, Appledude! Oh, dot com, cool. I see. As appledude tried to forge, I thought you were mad at me there, but you guys are never mad :PTheYellowDart—(t/c) 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In the future, it might be helpful to check the edit summaries. — It's dot com 22:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"SB emails sent by HRWiki users"

I suggest the making of this page. Not just because I sent one, I was going to suggest the making of this page, either that or a sub-section on the Strong Bad emails page.--H*Bad 04:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)