Talk:Main Page
From Homestar Runner Wiki
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (this is not the appropriate place to ask this question; your other messages have been received; keep your pants on, for real) |
(→Mysterious red border: Reply) |
||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
Umm, I don't have any red borders. {{User:Ugozima/sig}} 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | Umm, I don't have any red borders. {{User:Ugozima/sig}} 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I work for a service called ChaCha which has a Greasemonkey script that places a red border around all Wikis to remind me that I'm no supposed to use them as sources. Do you have something similar installed?{{User:Bassbone/sig}} 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:54, 25 March 2009
If so, please add it to the updates page. If you're not sure how to do that, then just post a note on this page, and we'll take care of the rest. Thanks!
Contents |
TVTropes?
Not sure the best place to put this, so I'll put it here.... since H*R deals with a lot of parodies and references to various TV tropes, could it be possible to have a quick link to TVTropes? That might help cut down on the "this reference could refer to this or this or that. wbwolf (t | ed) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- We currently have no articles that have any links to TVTropes.org, so a quick link to it would be pretty useless. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's... not true... — Defender1031*Talk 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK. But where are they? Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- All over the place... i'd do a search, but google doesn't search the wiki code and the wiki search is ignoring "tvtropes" for some reason... The most recent one is a link put on Hremail 2000. — Defender1031*Talk 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I also just had done a search with Google to see if there were any links. That's why I thought there weren't any. Homestar-Winner (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of TVTropes due to fact it's nothing more than "an organized forum for people to shout out their ideas all at the same time". If it was actually organised, correctly formatted and thus readable, things would be different. I feel it would be more beneficial if we could find an alternative, well-written article about the relevant trope somewhere on the Internet, or even a Wikipedia article, if possible. – The Chort 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I also just had done a search with Google to see if there were any links. That's why I thought there weren't any. Homestar-Winner (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- All over the place... i'd do a search, but google doesn't search the wiki code and the wiki search is ignoring "tvtropes" for some reason... The most recent one is a link put on Hremail 2000. — Defender1031*Talk 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK. But where are they? Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's... not true... — Defender1031*Talk 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hremails
Instead of putting Short for these hremails, Can we actually put, like "Hremail: Hremail 2000"?
- "HREmail" isn't actually a category of toons as of yet, though. --DorianGray 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- But it's not a short either... — Defender1031*Talk 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- They're uncategorized, and there's no reason for us to categorize them until TBC have done so as well. At the moment, they just reside in the New Stuff menu. —Guard Duck talk 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- So why on the main page does it list them as shorts? — Defender1031*Talk 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- They're uncategorized, and there's no reason for us to categorize them until TBC have done so as well. At the moment, they just reside in the New Stuff menu. —Guard Duck talk 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- But it's not a short either... — Defender1031*Talk 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we at least have some kind of navigation between the hremails? Yes, they're not categorized, but they are obviously related. --Son 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree.--Crudely Drawn Cupcake 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- They are categorized on HSR.com, if you look under the toons menu, under new stuff, they have a little icon next to them that says "HSE" which stands for Homestar Email? Since the SBEmails have "SBE" next to them? Maybe? Dunno... --WillowDrake 5:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's not categorized. all toons have three characters next to them like that. Categorized means put into one of the toon categories. — Defender1031*Talk 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Now that there's a handful of Hremails, I think it's reasonable if only for our own convenience to group them all together. Which is why I did so a couple of days ago. — It's dot com 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's not categorized. all toons have three characters next to them like that. Categorized means put into one of the toon categories. — Defender1031*Talk 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- They are categorized on HSR.com, if you look under the toons menu, under new stuff, they have a little icon next to them that says "HSE" which stands for Homestar Email? Since the SBEmails have "SBE" next to them? Maybe? Dunno... --WillowDrake 5:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Signature pictures
How do I put one of those pictures when I sign things?--Mariofan1000 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- For that, you'll need a signature. Please check Help:Signature for how to create one, but make sure it follows the guidelines. --DorianGray 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Former Featured Articles
In wake of the fact that Fourth Wall Breaks and Nintendo need cleanup and Date Nite's Commentary Transcript has been left incomplete for nearly 2 years now, should I make a template and a category for Featured Articles that no longer deserve such titles? I already have some gewd ideas for template pictures. 
BBG 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head I'd say no. Once featured, always featured. But to get a better idea, you should elaborate on what the wording of the template would be and what image we should use. — It's dot com 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wording would basically explain that the article needs improvement before it can once again "highlight the fine work of the Wiki", and the picture would be the pumpkin pie (unless the "worst" ribbon is too harsh, then it will be Strong Sad's Self Portrait in Late October). If that's too similar to the cleanup template, it could be invisible like {{no-image}}. I just think we need to separate articles that no longer highlight our fine work from those that do.
BBG 18:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like, cough cough, history according to strong bad? -132.183.138.34 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not very clear to me what's wrong with that article. BBG 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Featured articles here are not like those at Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, saying an article is featured means it's considered one of the encyclopedia's finest articles, and therefore those that fall below this standard end up getting de-featured. Here, it just means we thought it was cool enough to put on the Main Page. There's no need to consider an article de-featured here. Heimstern Läufer
02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- As a side note, lack of a commentary transcript is not enough to deprive an article of its awesomeness. — Defender1031*Talk 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Featured articles here are not like those at Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, saying an article is featured means it's considered one of the encyclopedia's finest articles, and therefore those that fall below this standard end up getting de-featured. Here, it just means we thought it was cool enough to put on the Main Page. There's no need to consider an article de-featured here. Heimstern Läufer
- It's not very clear to me what's wrong with that article.
- Like, cough cough, history according to strong bad? -132.183.138.34 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wording would basically explain that the article needs improvement before it can once again "highlight the fine work of the Wiki", and the picture would be the pumpkin pie (unless the "worst" ribbon is too harsh, then it will be Strong Sad's Self Portrait in Late October). If that's too similar to the cleanup template, it could be invisible like {{no-image}}. I just think we need to separate articles that no longer highlight our fine work from those that do.
Why...
I've always wanted to ask this, but why do we spend hours a day working on improving articles when almost 10% actually read the articles?? I guess it's good for something like a youtube video or something like that but is there some wiki inspector that comes along some time in 2009 that we're preparing for? Or is this all just for fun? Just asking. — MichaelXX2 
21:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ten percent of what? A far greater number of people read the articles than edit them, and even longtime editors still read articles for enjoyment. I myself read the 4 Gregs article just yesterday and learned some very interesting tidbits. The bigger answer lies in the answer to "Why does one climb a mountain?" Because it's there and it's fun and challenging to do well. — It's dot com 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Typo
but it isn't always clear whether or not the Dennis mentioned is reffering to the same Dennis in Thy Dungeonman. 'Refferring' should be spelled 'referring.'
- Fixed. Thanks. =) --DorianGray 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever happened to be bold and have fun? Or was that changed to cower down to the sysops and beg not to be blocked? =3 — MichaelXX2 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the featured article template is semi-protected, after all... Anonny: For future reference, if you create an account (and wait a day or so to be autoconfirmed), you'd be able to edit the FA writeup yourself, and fix any typos... --phlip TC 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- The annony was referring to the actual page, which is not semi-protected. — MichaelXX2 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant wording from the featured write-up is identical to the sentence in the article itself. There's no way to know for sure which one he meant, but it's more likely that he was intending the more visible and difficult to edit featured blurb. — It's dot com 22:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- The annony was referring to the actual page, which is not semi-protected. — MichaelXX2
- Well, the featured article template is semi-protected, after all... Anonny: For future reference, if you create an account (and wait a day or so to be autoconfirmed), you'd be able to edit the FA writeup yourself, and fix any typos... --phlip TC 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever happened to be bold and have fun? Or was that changed to cower down to the sysops and beg not to be blocked? =3 — MichaelXX2
Bots
If a regular user like me was skilled enough to have a bot and it was only used for good, will it be blocked? --Fangoriously 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be blocked. See HRWiki:Blocking_Policy#Bots Loafing
03:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why would a good bot that works be blocked? --Fangoriously! Chat 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because that's what we have users for.-
Record307 Talk/Contribs 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Or, if we really do need the services of a bot, it's why we have developer-controlled bots. We actually have one bot, First Time Here?, that comes into play just about every day. Out of curiosity, what do you think we need a bot to do? — It's dot com 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's also The Cheatbot, which does sophisticated Gnome work so that the wiki worked more smoothly. However, it has not been active since 2 June 2008. I wonder why? – The Chort 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of my own bot. The Cheatbot is active only when duty calls, and currently there are no pending approved projects. — It's dot com 15:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's also The Cheatbot, which does sophisticated Gnome work so that the wiki worked more smoothly. However, it has not been active since 2 June 2008. I wonder why? – The Chort 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Or, if we really do need the services of a bot, it's why we have developer-controlled bots. We actually have one bot, First Time Here?, that comes into play just about every day. Out of curiosity, what do you think we need a bot to do? — It's dot com 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because that's what we have users for.-
- Why would a good bot that works be blocked? --Fangoriously! Chat 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Tandy game
What did the "Tandy game" page look like before it was baleeted? --Fangoriously
17:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
1.14 Upgrade?
I've noticed that MediaWiki 1.14 (non-rc) has been out for three days now, and it seems that we haven't upgraded. Just a note. --69.150.85.66 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Three days? Wow, that would be extremely ambitious considering all of the customizations we make to the software, not to mention the fact that we developers have day jobs. Ever since we began doing upgrades the way we currently do, our record for upgrading after an official release is just under two weeks, set back when 1.8 was released. In all other cases it's taken us around two or three months (and that's not even counting the fact that we completely skipped 1.7, 1.10, and 1.13). With each upgrade, I have refined the process so that I have less to do each time (for example, by moving things out of the core code and into hooks, or by submitting a patch so that a custom feature or fix becomes standard), but some things are just intricate and have to be done manually (like autopipe). I had been making preparations in advance of the official 1.14 release, so hopefully it won't take too long, but just in case you weren't planning on keeping your pants on, I'd advise you do so. — It's dot com 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
New Page Suggestion
Hey, is there/should there be a page listing all the times that Characters imitate other Characters? Like Strong Bad imitating Homestar on Marzipan's answering machine, Homestar imitating The Cheat in Do Over, etc. etc. What do you think? (I know about the "be bold" thing, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask someone else's opinion =P) And, for future reference, is this where suggestions for new pages are supposed to be made? If not, where? ~ Branewashed 12:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- A page like Impersonations of Other Characters? Which we've had for 3 years? And there isn't really a set place for new page suggestions... this is probably as good a place as any. — Defender1031*Talk 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, yes, a page exactly like that...Yeah. Sorry 'bout that. Ok, so this can be ignored. =P Thanks! ~ Branewashed 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, glad i could help. — Defender1031*Talk 12:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, yes, a page exactly like that...Yeah. Sorry 'bout that. Ok, so this can be ignored. =P Thanks! ~ Branewashed 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Emoticons?
Are emoticons unique enough to deserve their own page? Off the top of my head I can think of Teen Girl Squad Issue 12, original, and Hremail 62 as examples. —Guard Duck talk 03:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Self-linking image
As you can see, this particular image links to itself on its "links" section. Why/how does it do that? — MichaelXX2 02:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's because of the {{notorphan}} template. --DorianGray 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- But how? — MichaelXX2 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here's why: The template has the following code:
<includeonly><span style="display:none">[[Media:{{PAGENAME}}]] <!-- to take the image off [[Special:Unusedimages]] --></span></includeonly>. It's a hidden link back to the image itself so that it doesn't show up in Special:Unusedimages. --Stux 03:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)- Sorry, that's my picture. When I saw how TBC edited the picture I submitted, that put a tiny little damper on my jovial spirit. I then created my account pretty much for the sole purpose of showing that picture to the world. But, pictures don't go too well on the fanstuff page, so it just has an irregular sort of link. I guess that's why this tag is here. Bleu Ninja
23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- There wasn't any particular conflict with your image, it was just the first one that came to mind that had that template. Nice use of legos, BTW. ;) — MichaelXX2 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- There wasn't any particular conflict with your image, it was just the first one that came to mind that had that template. Nice use of legos, BTW. ;) — MichaelXX2
- Sorry, that's my picture. When I saw how TBC edited the picture I submitted, that put a tiny little damper on my jovial spirit. I then created my account pretty much for the sole purpose of showing that picture to the world. But, pictures don't go too well on the fanstuff page, so it just has an irregular sort of link. I guess that's why this tag is here. Bleu Ninja
- Here's why: The template has the following code:
- But how? — MichaelXX2
Is it really necessary to put "email" in front of every Strong Bad email name on pages with bulleted lists? Like when it says "Email crying" on the Li'l Brudder page. --Fangoriously 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. — Defender1031*Talk 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why? --Fangoriously 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure we could do without the word "email" being before every SBEmail title, but since so many articles currently have the word on them, it would be easier to just not do anything about it than to change every article. Homestar-Winner (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why? --Fangoriously
Fanstuff Wiki Forum
Where is it? 72.129.20.89 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- http://z13.invisionfree.com/Fanstuff/ — It's dot com 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where's the Fanstuff Wiki? HUH? HUH!? I want the HRFWiki back!! --Homestar tiger
- It's still under construction and may remain that way for quite some time. However, you can post fanstuff at above forum, as well as at a whole number of different H*R related fansites. – The Chort 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's good. I've always said that fractions and fanstuff don't mix. — It's dot com 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's still under construction and may remain that way for quite some time. However, you can post fanstuff at above forum, as well as at a whole number of different H*R related fansites. – The Chort 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where's the Fanstuff Wiki? HUH? HUH!? I want the HRFWiki back!! --Homestar tiger
Green
All that green hurts my eyes. --Fangoriously 20:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed it some. — It's dot com 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- TURN IT BACK! MAKE IT LIGHTER! This dark green is boring --Fangoriously 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- seriously. We should be able to have it normal. Raiku 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why? It's cool and it makes Dot Com's Sig green.-Record307 Talk/Contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's just a little fun for a day (actually an extended day, since we have users in places around the world where it's already tomorrow), and if it's not your style, don't worry, everything will be back to normal soon enough. — It's dot com 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Green fine! Just lighter! No dark! --Fangoriously 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Green fine! Just lighter! No dark! --Fangoriously
- It's just a little fun for a day (actually an extended day, since we have users in places around the world where it's already tomorrow), and if it's not your style, don't worry, everything will be back to normal soon enough. — It's dot com 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why? It's cool and it makes Dot Com's Sig green.-
- seriously. We should be able to have it normal. Raiku 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- TURN IT BACK! MAKE IT LIGHTER! This dark green is boring --Fangoriously
- Is this the first year we've done this? I can't recall it in years past. —Guard Duck talk 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- We did it last year also. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the point. I just want the green to be lighter green. --Fangoriously 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- He wasn't responding to you, he was responding to my question. And to be perfectly frank, I think that a lighter green would only make pages harder to read and harder on the eyes. —Guard Duck talk 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, he could make it a little lighter because you can't read the text on some user pages like The Pizz's userpage.-Record307 Talk/Contribs 02:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- User pages aren't a priority. What's important are the articles, and the darker green makes those easier to read. We did do something like this last year, but it was only on the main page. This is the first year that it's been sitewide. — It's dot com 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, he could make it a little lighter because you can't read the text on some user pages like The Pizz's userpage.-
- He wasn't responding to you, he was responding to my question. And to be perfectly frank, I think that a lighter green would only make pages harder to read and harder on the eyes. —Guard Duck talk 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the point. I just want the green to be lighter green. --Fangoriously
- We did it last year also. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I love it. This is awesome. —BazookaJoe 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I love how any time a site changes, people complain. It's like this on facebook also. It's only a small change people, and unlike facebook, it's only going to be like this for a day or so. If you don't like it, don't come to the site for the next few hours. — Defender1031*Talk 04:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's uncalled for. If a whole lot of people really had a problem with it, then it would indeed be appropriate for them to voice their concerns here so it could be addressed. (Fortunately, it seems like one isolated case.)— It's dot com 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it was a permanent change, i'd agree. Since it's very temporary, i think people can just suck it up for a day. — Defender1031*Talk 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- See, there again. You're complaining about people who are not complaining.— It's dot com 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well then... I stand complained about... or something. — Defender1031*Talk 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- See, there again. You're complaining about people who are not complaining.— It's dot com 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it was a permanent change, i'd agree. Since it's very temporary, i think people can just suck it up for a day. — Defender1031*Talk 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's uncalled for. If a whole lot of people really had a problem with it, then it would indeed be appropriate for them to voice their concerns here so it could be addressed. (Fortunately, it seems like one isolated case.)— It's dot com 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- In case my comments were misinterpreted, I think this is totally awesome. HRWiki oughta do stuff like this for more holidays, although I assume it's a bit of a hassle for developers and such. —Guard Duck talk 05:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I love how any time a site changes, people complain. It's like this on facebook also. It's only a small change people, and unlike facebook, it's only going to be like this for a day or so. If you don't like it, don't come to the site for the next few hours. — Defender1031*Talk 04:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to see all the rest of you guys joining the green signature crew! Heimstern Läufer 05:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you Americans really are crazy about St Patrick's Day. Anyway, this sudden colour change got me thinking; is it possible to program into Preferences the ability to change the default colour in which users see the links? That way, you could have everything in green throughout the year! Or any other colour you'd like! Each user would be able to further customise their account, aside from changing the skins. I remember that you did just this with the TaviStyle skin after THAT April Fools incident. And I think you would still be able to override everyone's settings on holidays if you really wanted to. (Speaking of which, I just hope this year you aren't going to change everything to white. That would just be annoying.) – The Chort 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's no need to put it into preferences, just change your own monobook.css. — Defender1031*Talk 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] To change the color of the links you see, add the six lines from the group at the bottom of this edit to your personal style page. If you use MonoBook, then that page is located at User:Your Username/monobook.css. Note: you should leave out the "!important" tags unless it doesn't work without them, otherwise you won't see anything special when we celebrate other days. — It's dot com 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, It's dot com! It seems a bit difficult to do though, because you need to know the special codes for each colour you want. I just wondered whether it was possible to develop an easier interface for those who don't know much about coding, but then, due to the complete and utter irrelevance of changing the link colours, it's probably not really worth worrying about. – The Chort 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You don't necessarily have to put a specific color number. I could have used "
color: green" if I'd wanted, but I was going for something more specific. There are also online tools that can help, and any image editor worth its salt can tell you the hex value of a color. — It's dot com 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)- I personally like this green, as it's my favorite color. Check out my green siggy! Am I in the green sig club now? By the way, you can go here for a graphic of the colors and their codes. — MichaelXX2 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have a green sig. Is that okay? --Fangoriously 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not really what this is about, but sure. It's okay. {Pat on head} — MichaelXX2 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Like Heimstern, I don't have to do a thing to my sig because it's been green for months now. JCM 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- My sig is bi-polar, and proud of it. —Guard Duck talk 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, some of my ancestors were Orange Irish, and some were... Green Irish? I guess? So... --Jay (Talk)
- The green took a while to get used to, but I ended up liking it, especially since it saved me the trouble of making a St. Patrick's Day signature. BBG 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The green took a while to get used to, but I ended up liking it, especially since it saved me the trouble of making a St. Patrick's Day signature.
- Now that you mention it, some of my ancestors were Orange Irish, and some were... Green Irish? I guess? So... --Jay (Talk)
- My sig is bi-polar, and proud of it. —Guard Duck talk 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Like Heimstern, I don't have to do a thing to my sig because it's been green for months now. JCM 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not really what this is about, but sure. It's okay. {Pat on head} — MichaelXX2
- I don't have a green sig. Is that okay? --Fangoriously
- I personally like this green, as it's my favorite color. Check out my green siggy! Am I in the green sig club now? By the way, you can go here for a graphic of the colors and their codes. — MichaelXX2
- You don't necessarily have to put a specific color number. I could have used "
- Thank you, It's dot com! It seems a bit difficult to do though, because you need to know the special codes for each colour you want. I just wondered whether it was possible to develop an easier interface for those who don't know much about coding, but then, due to the complete and utter irrelevance of changing the link colours, it's probably not really worth worrying about. – The Chort 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
the or The?
I've noticed that there has been a bit of inconsistency regarding the capitalization of the word "the" in character's names (The Cheat, The Poopsmith, The Umpire, The Grape Fairy, etc.). So I ask you, are there any established rules about this? Are certain characters' the's supposed to be capitalized, while some are not? Omnisweater 14:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not counting things like the beginning of a sentence, the only time an article in or before a name should be capitalized is when it's consistently shown to be an integral article. — It's dot com 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Mysterious red border
Today, I noticed that there was a red border around the HRWiki. Actually, it seems to load last and resizes the entire wiki within the border. Has anyone else had this problem? I couldn't find any discussion about a background change, so I'll assume that isn't what is happening. I can provide screenshots if that would help. —
Zelinda 06:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Umm, I don't have any red borders. 
Ugozima Talk to me
22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
