HRWiki talk:Standards

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 17:00, 22 January 2006 by Homsad (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

REALLY External Links?

I can't find anything about this in the user guide.. but you know in the external links section of writeups, and in other places, how it puts that icon after the link (a blue box with an arow coming out)? To me, that essentially says "The link will open up in a new window" as well as "The link goes offsite". I've seen many websites (including every website I've built.. lightsecond.com, bend.com) that have the convention that if the link goes offsite, it should do so in a new window. Can/should we do the same here?
MetaStar 20:47, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

I'm voting against it. Opening a link in a new window is almost pretentious, as if the site you are on should have the power to not let you leave. Modern browsers like Firefox will let you open a link in a new tab when you want to go elsewhere by middle-clicking your mouse, and users are used to doing that when they want to stay on the current site. Furthermore, Firefox by default doesn't open new window links in new tabs, which annoys me to no end. I would say that an offsite link should behave like a normal link, so as not to confuse the user, and that opening a link in a new window should be a perogative of a web application that has a good reason for not taking you offsite. An example of this would be Hotmail, which opens links in a new window to keep you logged in unless you explicity log out. Most users of this site won't be logged in, and they'll be expecting the wiki to behave like like a normal website. So I saw leave it the way it is, and let the user control where his links pop up. If the icon is confusing, change the icon. Render

What about if it's a logged-in-user user preference? And of course this all pre-supposes that such fancies are possible in MediaWiki, which I dunno :) Anyway I have yet to understand tabs since they always open underneath the current page.. they make me think of icky popunders. (Do you know of any good tabbed-browsing-for-dummies like faq on the 'net? I'd read that ;)
MetaStar 22:21, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

User-configurable preferences are always good. Any admins know if this is possible in MediaWiki without a major overhaul? (As for tabs, I suppose it's just one of those things that just sort of grows on you. I like the pop-under effect because it lets me open interesting links for deferred viewing while I continue reading the page I'm on.) Render

Bold Punctuation?

I like how this is coming along, Jones. One question, though: haven't we always placed the colon outside the bold tags, as in "THE CHEAT:"? I guess I don't mind it either way, as long as we are adhering to a standard, but are there rules to this sort of thing? I remember being taught in school that punctuation should never be bold. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 09:43, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

Er, I thought we did it the other way around. And since the colon is part of the character "declaration" (rather than part of the dialogue), it seems more natural to have it bold as well. -- InterruptorJones 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
Okay, I've been looking around the web (but Tom is better at Googling than I am) and I can't find anything about whether or not punctuation should be bold. I think it looks more consistent to have the colon in bold. I just wanted to be sure that was the right thing. Carry on. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 10:26, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
I've always bolded the colon. ~Hobo
Think about it the inverse way. What if you were being asked to bold the dialog instead of the character name? Would you then bold the colon as well? The colon would still have a space before the dialog started so that would look pretty silly: "THE CHEAT: Meh!". so I think you should do with the colon what you do with the character name, not what you do with the dialog. :)
MetaStar 20:19, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

Cast (in order of appearance) vs Featuring/Features

I was thinking, for pages for things like early Strong Bad Emails and anything else where only one character appears, it seems kind of redundant to add the "in order of appearance" part since only one character appears. For SBemail#1, I just put "Cast" but even this seems a bit improper as a cast is generally referring to "The actors in a play, movie, or other theatrical presentation," not just one actor. I thought "Featuring" or something like that would be more appropriate... I feel like I'm rambling. ~Hobo

I guess I don't have an opinion on this one. Certainly "(in order of appearance) is superflouous for one-character toons, but beyond that I don't much care. Anybody else? -- InterruptorJones 11:41, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
To me, "Featuring" would make the most sense for one-character toons ~Hobo
Yeah, for a one character toon I like the word "Featuring". — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 12:55, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
But what about the meaning of the word "featuring"? Didn't cheatday feature The Cheat? I'd think using that word for some emails and "cast" for others would be misleading. Or at the very least, confusing. I'm thinking that leaving off the "in order of appearance" for toons with only one character would work well enough. -- Tom 14:24, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
I'm with Tom on this. Brevity good, "featuring" bad ;) I know on albums and song titles they say "song, by Rapper, feat. other guys".. but it isn't feat. Rapper. I'm also selfishly hoping the word "featuring" can be ostricised for long enough to easily convert things.
A quick look at a thesaurus suggests to me we could say "Starring: Strong Bad" but I'd also listen to other bright idears
MetaStar 20:28, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

SB email reference.

I have been using the following styles when referencing a Strong Bad Email depending on the context. 

in the email "[[the facts]]"
 in the Strong Bad Email: [[the facts]] 
==Complete Filmography==
* Email: [[duck pond]]

My goal is to make it clear that we are refering to the title of something. Otherwise one could get a sentance like,

Pom Pom kicked Strong Bad in the head in Pom Pom.

Not clear at all. Should this reference be standardized? -Drhaggis 11:47, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

It wouldn't hurt to standardize it since I see all sorts of different usages all over. However, I tend to put the quotation marks inside the link like this: [[the facts|"the facts"]], which yields "the facts". Looks better to me, but I'd like to hear others' opinions. -- InterruptorJones 11:54, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
I don't think having the leading "Strong Bad Email" is needed. But that's me. What about readers who don't know the emails? But then, if we started putting "in the email, sibbie", would we also need to start using that for toons and shorts as well, as in "in the toon, Where's The Cheat?" and "in the short Experimental Film"? Hmm. I'd also like to hear some other' input.
Though I do like having the Filmography listings standardized. Very good. -- Tom 12:34, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
I will third the opinion that quotes should be around the title of a toon or email when it is being used in a sentence (as opposed to a bulleted list of related items such as that found on the SBEmail page). I'm not sure which I like better. Putting them outside the link would be easier on my poor typing finders, but putting them inside the link does look nicer. Just my two cents for what it's worth. Should we start a decision poll on the Forum? Not sure we need the leading "in the email, 'whatever'". I think we can just say, "in 'the facts'." As long as it's in quotes you know it's a toon or an email as opposed to it being a character as in Drhaggis' example. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 12:41, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)
For me, having the quotes in the brackets is unnecessary piping. We should also be adding quotes around unlinked toon titles. -Drhaggis 15:02, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

Since when do we not transcribe easter eggs?

I personally think easter eggs should be transcribed. We can't hardly bill ourselves as a definitive knowledge-base of all things Homestar if we don't have transcripts of the easter eggs. Yes, it would ruin the surprise, but so does everything else on our site! The whole reason for a transcript is for people to understand what the characters are saying. If I can't make out what Strong Sad is saying in some-such easter egg, I'd like to be able to find it on the site and read what other people think/know he's saying. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 13:37, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)

Okay, fair enough. So we need a standard for transcribing them. Any ideas? -- InterruptorJones 13:50, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)
I liked having the short transcript under the bulleted item, but that does get bulky. Let me play around with some ideas and get back to you. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 14:24, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)
I took this claim against transcription of EE, was for cases when the egg would be detailed on another page. Such as in the case of a game, or the introduction of another characeter. -Drhaggis 19:02, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)
I thought we always did transcribe them. And the unwritten rule has always been this: If the egg is "clickable", that is, the user has to do something to cause the egg, it goes in the "Easter Egg" section. If the egg does not require any action on the part of the user, besides them just sitting in front of their computer a little longer, it goes in the Transcript. I'm pretty sure that's what everybody does anyway, but I just want to make it clear. -- Tom 19:08, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)
What about creating subheadings (i.e. ===cheatsa===) before each easter egg transcript in the Easter Eggs section? That would make things clearer. (I'm thinking something like:) 
===Homestar===
'''Click on the word "Homestar" to see Homestar crying.'''

''{Homestar is still bawling.}''

'''HOMESTAR''': Ohh, Tenderfoot! Can you tell me what to do
with myself? I feel like I'm at a crossroads, and there's like,
a Denny's on one corner, and an IHOP on the other!

''{Homestar is kneeling over the Tenderfoot drawing.}''

'''HOMESTAR''': Can you give me some sound financial advice?

''{Homestar is laying on the ground again.}''

'''HOMESTAR''': Tenderfoot, can you help advise me on my future?

Anybody with me? --oddtodd 11:17, 20 Nov 2004 (MST)

Format for Lyrics

Song lyrics are inconsistently styled throughout the site. I propose that we embed lyrics in <pre> tags, so that they show up inside of a box the same way that the transcribed text of the Strong Bad emails do. Thoughts? Render

Seconded. --Upsilon
Seconded. -flatluigi

Forward references

dragon has a link to guitar. Should guitar have a link to dragon?

Chronology on the official site shouldn't affect what can link to what in the wiki. If a link to a future email is interesting and relevant, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Render

Category pages

Currently Category pages, such as Category:Strong Bad Email or Category:1936 only contain text such as "These articles are all Strong Bad Emails.", and all the substance on that topic is contained in a separate page. Would it make more sense to move all of the substance to the Category page, and turn the actual Strong Bad Email or 1936 page into a mere redirect to the Category? Once and Only Once etc, since it would also provide the listing of everything in the Category underneath. -- thejesterx 21:47, 6 Oct 2004 (MST)

No, I don't think so. The Strong Bad Email page has a lot of information that wouldn't fit in the category page, and it's a lot easier to link to a regular page ([[Strong Bad Email]] vs. [[:Category:Strong Bad Email|Strong Bad Email]]) than a category. Categories should just be categories, not articles. ~~~

Character pictures

Now we use thumbnails for toon screenshots - should we do the same for character images? I assume we should, but I thought I'd better verify since it's not made clear anywhere. --Upsilon

EDIT: According to the projects page (drawn to my attention by spblat), "we need to comb the entire wiki changing full-sized images to thumbnails". This pretty much answers my question. --Upsilon

I guess it's my turn to have some fun. I've noticed that a lot of the filmography category styles are different. I'm going to go around changing them so they're a bolded debut and any complete list says "complete filmography". Otherwise, it will just say filmography. Is this ok? SparkPlug 04:21, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Easter Egg Transcribing Part 2

OK, since I've heard conflicting ideas on the wiki on whether or not Easter Eggs should be transcribed or not, can we finally get some sort of official, definitive yes/no on this? There's both the discussion on this page, the actual Standards page itself, and the discussion page for extra plug to take into consideration as to my confusion concerning it. I'm asking about this since, while I took the conversation on this page and in extra plug to mean Easter Eggs are expected to be transcribed now, some Easter Egg transcriptions are now being removed (see, for example, Where the Crap Are We?.) --TheNintenGenius 12:00, 18 Oct 2004 (MST)

This site aims to preserve so much other minutiae about Homestar Runner that I can’t imagine where the policy to not transcribe easter eggs came from. Are we trying to reduce spoilers? In that case, all of the transcripts are also inappropriate. I say we transcribe eggs in the easter eggs section where they are clearly marked and can be skipped by those who want to discover them on their own. Render
I was the one who deleted the Where the Crap Are We? egg transcript. I've probably removed a couple of others as well, because I wasn't aware that we should be transcribing eggs. Sorry about that. (I assume we are now giving egg transcripts?) --Upsilon
Yes, we are now transcribing easter eggs. I believe I caused the confusion. Sorry 'bout that. — InterruptorJones[[]]
FYI: In the other "Easter Egg Transcribing" section, I proposed a format to transcribe easter eggs with in order to reduce clutter. --oddtodd 11:21, 20 Nov 2004 (MST)

Thumbnails vs full-size images?

I read here that we should be focused on using thumbnails instead of full size images. I've been doing this on some, but I don't want to go nuts before I know I'm not messing things up. Are there any cases where full size screenshots (like this) should be preserved? -- spblat 7:13 PM 23 Oct 2004 (later) foo. Answered my own question. looks like full speed ahead--the standards page is quite clear on this.

Places

Should we start adding "Places (in order of apperance)" on toon pages? I think it would be helpful to new-comers, as well as everyone else. →FireBird

Wikilinks in transcript dialogue

There should never be links in dialogue or email sections.

I'm not so sure about this rule. Certainly we shouldn't create links willy-nilly. But when Strong Bad asks, "Did the quadratic formula explode?", it'd be nice to just link the words "quadratic formula" than to have to propose a whole fun fact about it (which is often not that much fun). - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 01:03, 25 Nov 2004 (MST)

Nah. I'd like to keep it as it is. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

Splitting Fun Facts

I have an idea for splitting the Fun Facts section into multiple smaller segments - so, if we can't get rid of the now-customary influx of "facts", we can at least split them up. I put my proposed edit (which is open for debate!) at 'link deleted'. --Jay 03:44, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)

Sounds interesting and well thought out, but I think we might want to wait for the dust to settle from this whole star thingy before we start to shake things up any more. -- Tom 21:02, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
Strangely enough, it was the whole star thing that caused me to bring it up in the first place (though I'd been toying with the idea for a while.) --Jay 00:07, 8 Jan 2005 (MST)
I was bored at work and started segmenting some of the Strong Bad Emails. For now I'm not doing any more in the interest that the Wiki should decide on one standard for the fun facts; otherwise I'm just opening up a can of worms that doesn't need to be touched. Kamek 10:19, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)
Since I had to remove the subpages, I moved the proposed changes and example to my talk page. Nothing changed, really. PS. I like the "Fast Forward" category name (used in some kinda robot by Kamek) over my somewhat lame "To be continued..." --Jay 13:06, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)
Well, if the two of you want to tackle this, I don't really see any reason why you shouldn't. I'll try to help when I can. -- AgentSeethroo
I'll go ahead and continue with the refactoring of the Fun Facts. The way I see it is that if something isn't done about it, nothing will get done at all. For the most part I'll try to stick to your proposed standards, Jay. I might add or remove categories if necessary. Kamek 17:59, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)
I think the fun facts layout should be as following: 
== Fun Facts ==
=== Trivia ===
Interesting facts about the toon or e-mail.
=== References ===
Interesting references to other things outside Homestar Runner.
=== References To Other Cartoons ===
References to other cartoons.
=== References By Other Cartoons ===
References that other cartoons have made to this toon or e-mail.
I realize that this is roughly what is already being done, but I think the sections should be reworded.
And what about this "gold star" thing? Is it going to happen, or are we going to trash it? Have we even decided yet? →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

As you've probably noticed, I've split all the sbemails and TGS8. The Fun Facts heading is still there, but everything is in subcategories now. The only complaints I got were one person who didn't like me splitting the emails with very few facts - which I have explained (on my talk page) - and another who didn't like the category name "Fast Forward" (because it was too ambiguous) but didn't offer anything better. (Of course, I'd gladly delete the Fast Forward subcategory and every last Fun Fact within it, except that most people don't seem to agree that this is a good idea.) Is everyone okay with this being a permanent change? Any complaints about the splitting itself, rather than the format? Should we update the Standards? --Jay 19:57, 18 Jan 2005 (MST)

Real-World References?

Is just me, or do we need better name for "Real-World References"? The name isn't very accurate when we add facts about other fiction. I suggest "Outside References" or "Cultural References". --Trogga 15:02, 11 Apr 2005 (MDT)

On the one hand, I think you're on to something when you say that "Cultural" might be a better term. On the other hand... well, you'd have to go through a LOT of articles to fix it... --Jay 15:16, 11 Apr 2005 (MDT)

That's why we Projects, my friend. --Trogga 07:41, 13 Apr 2005 (MDT)

Running Gags Section

As you may have seen in a recent STUFF'd fun fact, there have been mixed reactions about letting "This is another instance pof The Cheta's head exploading" be a fun fact, so I'm thinking we should have a Running Gags section for fun facts. WHat do you guys think?

Nah. —FireBird|Talk 15:58, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
C'mon, FireBird, give us a little more than a one-word response. — It's dot com
The vote to accept is currently 18–2, and I think the two decliners mistook a running gag for an nth instance of something or a common event. As for listing the running gags, I don't have a problem with keeping them in Inside References, since that's what they are. But they should definitely be documented somewhere, at the very least so that they can link to the Running Gags page. I will keep an open mind on this idea for now. — It's dot com 16:02, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Mentioning them in Inside References I feel would be the best idea, but I'm fully against a full category for them. —FireBird|Talk 16:07, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with that, I was just surprised when it was STUFF'd. - Ju Ju Master 17:09, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I would like to pop in my say on this: As a relative new-comer to the wiki, one who has been here for a while but is yet to make an account, I think that having a Fun-Facts split section for Running Gags would be good, and if it isn't, it couldn't do any harm. -Ariamaki July 7th, 4:11 AM est.

Creating a page with a bunch of keyboard mashings wouldn't do any harm, either, but we delete it anyway. Adding a new Fun fact that is poor in grammar wouldn't do any harm, but we fix it anyway. Of course it wouldn't do harm, but some just don't like the idea of it. —FireBird|Talk 13:45, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Running gags don't appear in great numbers, so we would probably just have one fun fact in the section. If any. Rogue Leader

Err... Why was my edit reverted?

Internet (as in the Internet; the one Homestar Runner is on) is a proper noun and should thus be capitalized. See Wikipedia:Internet. --Úħ¡ βøв 20:38, 27 Mar 2005 (MST)

Forgot to mention that Flash (as in Macromedia Flash; the format that most Homestar Runner content is in) should also be capitalized, yet the F goes uncapitalized on many pages. --Úħ¡ βøв 20:40, 27 Mar 2005 (MST)
Good question about the "I" in Internet. I'm not really sure, you might want to ask over on InterruptorJones's talk page. As for the "F" in Flash, that's a good point. I change it when I see it, and I've updated the page to note the capital. -- Tom 00:16, 28 Mar 2005 (MST)
I realize this discussion was held months ago, but when I read this just now it reminded me of an article on Wired.com almost a year ago: It's Just the 'internet' Now. They make a lot of good points in there. Macromedia Flash is certainly a formal product name, but "internet" is no different from "radio" or "television". The internet isn't a product, it's a medium. It isn't a proper noun, it's just a noun. In fact, the Wikipedia:Internet article does mention the shift away from capitalizing in the naming conventions section. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 19:19, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that article has come a long way since March. I'd think that being a knowledge base we'd tend to use it in the formal sense though. Is that right? -- Tom 22:37, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Duration vs. Running Time

I've noticed that, at least for Strong Bad Email pages/transcripts, the note about how long it is is inconsistent. Some pages use "Duration," others use "Running Time." Not that it's really that big of a deal, but which one would be better to use? (I vote "Running Time.")—StrongstarRunbad 09:14, 30 Mar 2005 (MST)

Template to simplify Cast & Filmography

I've made a template, Template:Film, that can be used for Cast lists in toon pages. It automatically adds the page to the character's Filmography category, so you don't need to explicitly add the filmography category at the bottom of the page. For example, for rampage: 

'''Cast (in order of appearance):''' {{Film|Strong Bad}},
{{Film|Strong Mad}}, {{Film|The King of Town}}, 
{{Film|Homestar Runner}}, {{Film|Coach Z}}, {{Film|The Cheat}},
{{Film|Strong Sad}}, {{Film|Marzipan}}, {{Film|Homsar}}

Replaces: 

'''Cast (in order of appearance):''' [[Strong Bad]], [[Strong Mad]],
[[The King of Town]], [[Homestar Runner]], [[Coach Z]], 
[[The Cheat]], [[Strong Sad]], [[Marzipan]], [[Homsar]]

...

[[Category: Strong Bad Filmography]][[Category: Strong Mad Filmography]] 
[[Category: The King of Town Filmography]] [[Category: Homestar Runner Filmography]] 
[[Category: Coach Z Filmography]] [[Category: The Cheat Filmography]] 
[[Category: Strong Sad Filmography]] [[Category: Marzipan Filmography]] 
[[Category: Homsar Filmography]]

It seems to simplify things. What do people think? -- thejesterx 09:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similar template for Computer in SBEmails

I noticed that SBEmail pages don't specify the computer the email was received on, they merely show it in the relevant category at the bottom. I made a similar template, Template:Comp to specify the computer Strong Bad used to receive the email, and automatically put it in the category for that computer. For example, in rampage: 

{{Comp|Lappy 486}}

Which displays: Computer: Lappy 486, and puts the page in the Category:Lappy 486 Emails category. Anyone think this is a good idea, or is this info unnecessary? -- thejesterx 09:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Standards

With the recent makeover of Characters and Items, the need for better headlines and captiones of images has grown strong. Homestar Coder and myself begone to change those systematically, but to what? All the pictures already changed, like this one used the following standard: 

'''[[artical name]]''' (from [[toon this image was taken from]])

For cases with images of more than one character, artical of place it was taken from, all the appropriate links should be made, and the most important ones should be bolded. If this standard is fine with everybody, than I think it need to be added to the standard page. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 14:12, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Should it be a standard to differentiate between easter eggs that occur during the toon and easter eggs that occur at the end of the toon? --Ace00899 02:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

They should already be listed in chronological order and have descriptions about where to find them, like early in the toon or at the end. A better, more pertinent question is, are we going to start listing so-called waiting eggs (those things that happen seconds after the Paper comes down) in the Easter egg section? — It's dot com 05:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

More general "out of the frame" rule proposal

I've seen a lot of fun facts floating around that to me seem analogous to the outside-the-frame facts that we usually delete with a vengeance. Most of them involve a seek bar in some way, or using the right-click menu (by viewing the swf directly or on pages that don't have it disabled). I suggest that the standards for glitches be changed to include something like:
Glitches which occur in such a way that they cannot be seen during normal viewing (for example they happen outside the frame, or need a seek bar) are usually not notable. However if something happens that can only be accessed in this way, but is intentional, or otherwise adds something to the article, then it should be mentioned as a Remark.
Probably would need some rewording before (and if) becoming official, but it gets my point across... the idea is that this would remove all the facts like:
  • (The canonical) If you view the flash file, String Bad has no body, just a head!
  • If you use a seek bar to skip some initialisation, things aren't initalised properly (such as the "Undefined.Undefined" level in Stinkoman 20X6)
  • Anything involving RMB->Pause or RMB->Play
  • Anything involving the Stinkoman 20X6 Cheat Program, or any other tool that makes things happen in ways they weren't intended to.

However it would still allow facts like:

  • Moving the mouse over "Store" lots and then over "Downloads" doesn't work properly on Main Page 22 (uses only the controls avaliable in the flash file itself, so comes under "normal viewing")
  • The moustacioed Homestar in Senorial Day (clearly intentional)
  • The dancing headless Homestar in mile ("otherwise adds something to the article")

It probably needs rewording, such specifying what "normal viewing" and "adds something to the article" mean, but the spirit of the proposal is there, even if the letter is imperfect. Your thoughts? --phlip TC 13:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If noone has any objections I'll take the axe to Stinkoman 20X6 Glitches, which is full of things like this... --phlip TC 09:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds pretty good Philip. -- Tom 17:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Standardize "The Cheat Noises"

My attention was drawn to Lookin at a Thing in a Bag by an anonny disagreeing with another over what it sounded like The Cheat was saying. Now I've seen in various transcript edits a trend to "not put words in The Cheat's mouth" and simply transcribe as "The Cheat noises." This is not universally implemented, though; there are lots and lots of instances of things like {The Cheat squeaks, it sounds like...}. I'm not sure I'd advocate reducing everything to "The Cheat noises;" in some instances his noise really sounds strikingly like some phrase, enough to note; also variations such as "The Cheat noises in the affirmative" or "The Cheat squeaks softly" (lady...ing) are good. But we seriously need to fix some.
Also, should they be:
THE CHEAT: {The Cheat noises} ... or simply insert it within the flow of other characters' dialogue?

Oh, and one other thing: the colon is bold along with the name, as above, right? That needs to be changed on Lookin at a Thing in a Bag too. —AbdiViklas 00:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of the cases should be "The Cheat noises" or "The Cheat squeaks" or similar. I do believe that there does exist that tiny fraction where it actually sounds like he's saying something. But these cases are quite rare. Also notable are the instances where he was translated courtesy of the "Learn to Speak The Cheat" Easter egg. I like when we can add something to indicate his mood or tone of voice, as you mentioned. Finally, other characters get their own line of text when they speak. Why not The Cheat? — It's dot com 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Cool. If no one objects, I'll make this my little project. —AbdiViklas 01:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, when the colons aren't bold faced, that's an error of the transcriber. The colons need to be boldfaced. - Joshua
Thanks! I'm doing that too as I encounter them. —AbdiViklas 01:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ignored Rule

If a character does something while speaking a line of dialogue, or if more description is needed for their manner of speaking or inflection (e.g. if they're singing or whispering) the action (if it is not too long to describe in a few words) can be enclosed in curly braces — { } — and made italic, like this: {goes to the refrigerator}. Note that the curly braces themselves are also italic. Short actions like these do not need to be proper sentences.

The bold rule is probably one of the most ignored rules ever. Go through the various transcripts and you'll see tons of examples of long in-dialogue actions, some of which don't even relate to the speaker. This problem needs to be fixed, but it's way too big for me to do alone. (Here is an extreme example of this problem.) - Joshua 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I put this in projects, because that's probably where it belongs. - Joshua 14:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, but does anybody read that page? You should delete it from either here or there, to avoid duplicating the discussion. — It's dot com 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It belongs in Projects, but I don't think anyone reads that page either, because it is so outdated, and many of the projects aren't done. - Joshua 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sig standards

I realize it's partly my fault for teaching people how to use templates for their sigs and adding an icon to my own sig, but things are starting to really get out of hand. For starters, I propose we restrict images to one 16 x 16 image per sig. If enough people are against images altogether, I don't mind complying and removing my image. Secondly, I think we should prohibit sup and sub tags in sigs altogether. Third, should we have restrictions on the number of colors people are allowed to use in their sigs, or should we prohibit colors all together? Fourth, should we restrict length? I'm not sure how we could police this one since length depends mostly on a person's username. Just some ideas. Talk amongst yourselves. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 23:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for reference, I'd like to point out the Fanstuff Wiki encountered a similar problem a while back. Information can be found here, along with a link to the rules that were made regarding it. - Joshua 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify, these sig standards don't apply to anything sig-like on user page/talk page/sub pages that aren't a sig template. A prime example of a possible conflict would be Wilbur's user sig. As a bonus, anybody who would like to showcase their denied sig could still do so on their userpage. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 02:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

  • Don't mind them, as long as they're small. And even though I like H*C's cat, I think the images should be static, not animated. — It's dot com
  • A small one. one that do not highens the line above it in normal text. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it to < 16px. Larger images get out of hand. — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I like a small image in a sig; it makes people quickly identifiable. I would propose a guideline of 20x20 instead of 16x16. JoeyDay's sig icon is 19px high and it looks just fine to me. Personally I don't mind animated images ;) but if they annoy other people then we could disallow them. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 20 pixels is fine. Animated images, to me, are fine now, but may have a tendency to get out of hand in the future. I think that animated gifs should be turned into png versions, so that the image is preserved, but it doesn't get distracting. — Lapper (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't realize my image was that big. I revise my original proposal. 20 x 20 should be good. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think images are fine as long as they don't stretch the line of text too high and low. Animated ones don't bug me, as long as they aren't flashy. (For example, H*C's pic is fine to me.) - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Animated ones are fine. Just limit one image per sig, and limit size (maybe something from 20 to 30 pixels). «Rob» 13:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove sup/sub

  • Agree. — It's dot com
  • Don't mind. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • They interfere with above/below text. Remove. — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What browser are you using? My sig doesn't affect line spacing for me... --phlip TC 00:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It isn't necessarily that the line spacing is affected, just that they crowd the line above or below. At least, that's how they show up on mine. — It's dot com
        • Actually, on mine, Phlip, I use Safari, and to me the spacing in this <h3> is normal except for the line where your sig is. — Lapper (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Could you look at this (permanant link to the current Sandbox, since it could very well change soon) to see which lines have the spacing messed up? Are the ones faked with <span> ok? If they are, I'll change my sig to use them instead... --phlip TC 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I seriously don't see anything wrong with them. We should have a limit to the number of characters in the tags though. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Every line in that example sandbox page has extra padding either above or below in Firefox. What browser are you using Phlip? — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 23:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Firefox. And they all look fine to me (well, if you're being picky, there's maybe 1px here or there, but nothing that you'd notice in flowing text... and some of that is probably rounding errors anyway...[1]) --phlip TC 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                • All the line spacing looks (mostly) uniform to me. My point earlier was not that the spacing is messed up by the sup/sub, but that the sub from one line often collides with the sup from another. — It's dot com
  • Sups and subs don't bother me at all. - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Allow sups and subs. «Rob» 10:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Colors

  • Do not prohibit. Neutral about whether there should be a limit on the number of colors. — It's dot com
  • Limit to 3 or 4 colors. differant tones of the same color (i.e. dark green and light green) count as one color. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Colors should clearly contrast with the white background. (i.e. Bright yellow should not be allowed) — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No limit on colors unless signature is unreadable on white. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 18:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Speaking of that, some people have tried using backgrounds other than white. We should insist on white backgrounds with no borders. — It's dot com
      • I agree. Before you (or someone) interfered, User:GWR 2004's signature was a bit out of hand with borders. — Lapper (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No borders, no special backgrounds, no unreadable or otherwise annoying colors. Other than that, I'm fine with them. - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not prohibit, but no annoying colours. If someone feels that the colours in someone's sig are annoying, they can advise that person on their user talk page. «Rob» 10:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Just what constitutes an annoying color? Out of the limited number of hex codes to create a color, how many of them are annoying? I R F 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The most annoying color (really, the only one I've ever seen) is bright yellow, which is all but completely unreadable. — It's dot com
        • Heh, that used to be my color. But yea, I agree. It shouldn't be a problem too often, and I'm sure if it ever does come up that one user wants a near unreadable color, a comprimise can be reached. But I would limit it to no more than 3 color changes in a sig, regardless of whether it's the same or not. eg: red, blue, green would be allowed, but red, blue, red, blue, green, red, green, blue would not. The rainbow sigs are flashy and childish, IMO. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 02:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Length restrictions

  • Need to find a way to calculate how much is too much. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No longer than the number of characters in the entire user name, plus a few. — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
This is the problem. how many is a few? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I personally think Lapper's is the perfect maximum length after the user name. — It's dot com
I'd say a good standard to use would be the length of a timestamp. I count 29 characters there. Maybe a little shorter would work. 20 or 25 maybe?. -- Tom 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature for some ideas. -- Tom 01:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There's also the problem with people using large fonts to make their sig much wider than it should be with only their name. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tom on that one. 20 characters should be the absolute longest. Besides, usernames themselves longer than 20 characters are somewhat rediculous. — Lapper (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should measure any length restriction in characters, rather in pixels on a "normal" display. This is because (1) the fonts are proportional (2) someone can always use style="font-size:10000%" or something, (3) this will also take into acount the image icon thingies. --phlip TC 22:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The fanstuff uses Username + 6 large characters or 12 small characters, images counting as large characters. That works for me. - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, the rules regarding sig lengths (which was the main reason why those rules were introduced to the fanstuff wiki, because some sigs were a whole line) at the fanstuff wiki should work fine here. Also, text larger than "normal" size (the default size that the wiki uses) should be the limit of how big you can have the text in your sig. «Rob» 10:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Some of these sigs are three and four times the length of the user's name. I propose that an entire signature—including the name, image, and links (if any)—should fit into a box 20 x 160 pixels under normal settings: suggested signature size (20 n's will fit in that box, but you can fit upwards of 25 normal-size letters, spaces, and other characters, depending on certain things). I started measuring signatures on the STUFF page, and nearly everybody's fits into it. I think if a name is so long that you can't put a talk link after it and still fit it in the box, then maybe you should omit the link. Or if someone's trying to fit "(talk about my stuff • all the things I did)," but it won't fit, reduce it to "(talk • edits)." Using <small> is also an option, as long as it's not too small. — It's dot com
    • No one has posted to this discussion in a little bit, so I thought I would bring it up again. Here is an image of all the current signatures. You probably will need to click on the image to enlarge it. The gray line is my suggested width of 160px. I don't think going over the line just a few pixels is that bad, but on the other hand some of them are quite long. Check out the one near the bottom. — It's dot com 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow, thanks for the image, dot com. That's very helpful. I mentioned this in IRC yesterday, but I'll say it here so everyone else can hear it. I really think 25 n's would be better. Somewhere around 200px. That includes a few more people that are straying outside of 160px, while still giving no excuse for the really long folks. I just don't want anyone to accuse us of being unreasonable. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 17:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Make it official?

So... is this debate ongoing, or can some official sig standards be written and added to the page now? Recently I was trying to find such standards for a user with a long sig and couldn't; Rogue Leader finally directed the user to this talk page. If we have "standards," they shouldn't be on a talk page, should they? And if we're delaying because it's still under discussion than... let's build a fire under it. —AbdiViklas 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I got a fancy signature (User:Nerd42/sig I would like to be able to use. I've put it on all the wikis that I am a member of that allow signatures. I'd be for the No Images policy, but I don't see why colors should be a problem. Length - well, as you can see from mine, I'm not that concerned LOL but if it takes up more than one line on a page, that would be a huge problem. Other than that, I don't see why people think they have to regulate everything ... I think any such policy ought to be worded using phrases like "within reason" and if someone's signature actually becomes disruptive to the site, then admins could deal with that on a case-by-case basis, don't you think? --NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc  18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if we did have a "within reason" policy, I think your current sig would be one of the ones that we would deem disruptive and would deal with. Also, it looks like User:Thunderbird L17 is currently dealing with it on what I would call a case-by-case basis on your talk page. -- Tom 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I think it's gone on long enough, that we can make a final version. I've left a rough suggested final version below, for anybody to edit, until it's ready to be put into motion. Should we explain how to template your sig? Also wording could be made more professional, and the size point should be clarified, as it seems as though the size was never decided upon. Should it perhaps be made a bit bigger? I also added a suggested point that wasn't really discussed at all, but specifically with pages like this, I think it could become a problem in the near future. So what does everybody think? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Signatures (Final Version)

See HRWiki:Signature for the current signature standards.

 
One thing I think we might want to do is put somewhere, maybe Help:Signature or whatever, is that using Special:Preferences and changing the "Nickname" field to what you want your sig to be is much more preferred than using the a template. Then again, I know many people do not want to look at three lines worth of code for someone's sig whenever they click "edit" on a talk page. I suppose we're a bit late for that though, with such widespread use.
Additionally, creating a template sig is not something a new user should be instructed to do as soon as they join. It most cases, it's not necessary to use a template. -- Tom 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
That's true. As long as it's a somewhat small code, you may as well stick to the usual box. The one problem with that is for users such as this one, who like their signature to be uniformed, and yet also changable, which is quite understandable. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom; yes, we should make it clear that it's perfectly alright not to make a custom sig at all; that'll probably head off a lot of problems at the pass. A few thoughts:
  1. What's up with the limitation on sig changes? I can imagine it could get confusing, and hard to recognize people once you've gotten used to a certain sig configuration, but I can't really think of any other detrimental effects. At least, I can't think of any reason not to say "shouldn't be frequent" instead of "only once or twice a year".
  2. What constitutes a "distracting" but non-animated image? Might be good to spell out.
  3. There's already step-by-step directions for how to implement a custom sig at Help:Signature; this should link to there and—especially—vice versa! —AbdiViklas 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. You pretty much spelled out the problems yourself. It became a big enough problem over at the Forum to require change locking. We don't want the same thing to happen here.
  2. We can't list every possible image that would apply, but it's safe to say that if such an image exists, a user will come up with it. By saying "no distracting images", it leaves it open to our judgement just what abuses the privilages. In general though, I'm sure most will be allowed.
  3. We're still discussing that, we'll most likely change that page and link to this, line them all up, etc, once these standards are done and ready to implement.
Hope that answers your questions, Abdi. Viklas. notstrongorbad. Watered down. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed it from "one or two" to "a couple", which is about the same except with a little more wiggle room. When I was talking about "distracting", I was actually trying to leave room for a non-distracting animated image while giving a justification for asking someone to remove their distracting animated image. But I suppose there could be a distracting static image, too. — It's dot com 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
One last thing: Should the examples with the arrows be reversed? Or is that just me? -- Tom 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not just you. I think it makes more sense reversing them from what they are now. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
These standards were implemented and moved to HRWiki:Signature at 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The nicknames and usernames should not have been switched: "If you use a shortened or altered form of your official name, it must be something that suggests your username." Dot com must suggest It's dot com, not the other way around. — It's dot com 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please post any further discussion on this subject on HRWiki talk:Signature.

Transcript Question

Why do we script Homestar as 'Homestar Runner' in transcripts? I mean all the characters and the creators refer to him as just Homestar, shouldn't we treat 'Runner' as like a last name and just call him Homestar? The Pardack

Simply because Homestar Runner is his full name. It's just proper. Homestramy20|Talk 17:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
And quite a bit of the time in running text we will say "Homestar Runner" on first mention and then "Homestar" thereafter. The only place we spell it out every time is the label when he's speaking dialogue. — It's dot com 17:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Plus, TBC get kinda capricious about last names. By the above argument, Strong Bad should just be Strong, but we've never heard that. Marzipan has been referred to as "Miss Pan," but the Poopsmith has never (thankfully) been "Mr. Smith." This has helped lead to the current discrepency in The Ugly One's name; according to comic she'd have to be Joy, Jennifer, or Virginia, but a logical extension of Issue 10 would imply that it's "The." None of it's written in stone. —AbdiViklas 17:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the girls' names are Joy Cheerleader, Kristen So and So, Jennifer What's Her Face, and Virginia The Ugly One. Mrs. So and So-erson's maiden name was Erson, and she has chosen to hypenate upon marrying Mr. So and So. — It's dot com 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think Strong Bad's given name is Bad, and he would be rightly called Mr. Strong in that case. Since the Brothers Strong share the name Strong, it's only reasonable that Strong is their surname. — It's dot com 18:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Yup. (Maybe they're Asian!) But he doesn't correct the interviewer who calls him "Mr. Bad" in the Screen Savers Interview. —AbdiViklas 18:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Not all that different from a kid calling a camp counselor Mr. Joe (Dr. Joe), Mr. Smiley (ran our college cafeteria) or even Mr. Ed. :) Ok so college students count as kids, right? --Stux 19:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Why do I fell like I opened a Pandora's Box? Anyway so what if it's his full name. In the DVD transcript we don't call the creators Mike Chapman and Matt Chapman we just call them Mike and Matt how is Homestar different The Pardack
By the way, we are inconsistent on this last point. — It's dot com 06:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, it's a convention of Southern etiquette (with roots in slavery) that the "Mr./Miss [first name]" construction is perfectly polite. You run into it every now and then with the Ya-Ya Sisterhood types, Southern belles on Celebrex. As Georgians, the phenomenon is probably not foreign to TBC's experience. —AbdiViklas 00:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Make decisions on the wiki

The following discussion was from a talk page for a now deleted template. It has been copied here because it illustrates an important point: namely, if you make an important decision outside the wiki (for example, in the IRC channel), you must have the same discussion on the wiki so that everyone may participate, and no formal action should be taken until that happens.

When was this article [the "Powered by The Cheat" template] voted on deletion? I tried looking around but found no discussion (and I don't remember voting for it in the Basement either (er where can I link to that too?) --Stux 17:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't ever been voted for deletion, as it was created just recently. The question is, should it? —BazookaJoe 17:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, stux, the discussion was on the IRC channel of the wiki. It included: Lapper, BazookaJoe, Rogue Leader, FireBird and myself. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
We're thinking just like the Toons, Shorts, and OldTimey templates were deleted, so should this be. People can just navigate through the category and the article itself. —BazookaJoe 18:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh. Is it possible that you could post a transcript of said discussion? While I agree that the IRC channel is a great place for discussion, making decisions such as these should not be considered final in that medium for users (like me) that do not frequent the channel. (It also does not have the permanence that a talk page has which can be later referenced to.) That way the entire Wiki community is given a decent chance to contribute. As for deletion, I am not sure, this template is not as general as the other two. Like my opinion for old timey it could be cleaned up. I really have mixed feelings about it. In general, I think templates like these make navigating through themes a lot easier than going through categories (such as the main characters), provided they are not overboard. Newer, shorter templates that replace the deleted ones might prove to be useful. --Stux 19:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
That's why I haven't deleted it yet. —BazookaJoe 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Stux, the idea of deletion was agreed upon by 5 respected users. We have been using the categories for a long time. Why stop now. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 19:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the transcript form the chat:

<BazookaJoe`> I was going to fix {{PbtC}}
<BazookaJoe`> Crap, should we even keep {{PbtC}}?
<FireBird> Not if we've gotten rid of {{shorts}}.
<Elcool> and {{toons}} and {{Old-Timey))
<BazookaJoe`> sigh...
<BazookaJoe`> Then I won't fix it up.
<BazookaJoe`> We'll throw it onto the pile.
<FireBird> Aww.
<Lapper> how's that?
<Lapper> Guys?
<BazookaJoe`> I think I'm just going to delete {{pbtc}} outright.
<BazookaJoe`> But... eh, some people might like it.
<BazookaJoe`> no, they won't
<BazookaJoe`> here I am going back and forth on this one.
<Rogue_Leader> please delete Toons, old timey, and shorts though
<Elcool> just let me get the code first. ok?
<BazookaJoe`> Will do.
<FireBird>Elcool: If nobody likes the delete, we can always back it up.
<BazookaJoe`> are {{toons}}, {{shorts}}, and {{Old-Timey}} deleted yet? if not, can you tell me when you've put the code up on /templates?
<Rogue_Leader> they arent
<Rogue_Leader> I think Elcool already transfered the code
<Elcool> yeah.
<Elcool> everything is cool
<BazookaJoe`> Okay. No one needs the templates anymore, then?
<Lapper> So are all the templates declined in voting going down?
<Lapper> Yeah, Elcool just backed up {{pbtc}}.
<Rogue_Leader> yeah
<Rogue_Leader> Two temps still need voting on

— Elcool (talk)(contribs) 19:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing I seriously dislike about that conversation is that 4 people think that they represent the opinions of the entire wiki. One person saying that, "No they [the entire wiki] won't [like it]," is not considered a consensus. Also, why was every instance of this template removed, even when it is still pending deletion? - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
For the same reason a fun fact is removed (even if it's a good one) if it's on STUFF. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 21:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for posting a copy of your transcript and for not deleting the template outright. However, with all due respect, I must agree with Kookyman's comment. The deletion was not voted inside the wiki, but rather in a forum outside the wiki. Not all of the usual contributors has chimed in on this deletion (even if it's similar to the previous deltions) -- this is not the same situation, in my opinion, as when STUFF'd items are closed and subsequently deleted. Moreover, Kookyman makes a good point: the template has been removed from all the articles it served before what I believe to be a proper consensus was reached. Not that creating the template in the first place was a consensus, but it was done in good faith, to serve a good purpose. I assume this deletion was also done in good faith, and to serve a good purpose, but I think this has to be finalized through the proper channels that have already been established in this wiki. --Stux 21:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the IRC wasn't the best place to discuss this, but we wanted a consensus upon it before we put up the tags. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Two noteworthy things here: First, anytime you have an extrawiki discussion where you make a decision—chat, email, phone call, wherever—you must go to the appropriate talk page and have the same discussion, to allow everyone to participate. And that's all I have to say about that. Second, I don't see what benefit this template would give that would justify keeping it. It's basically just a rehash of the category, and the pages it contains just share that one loose thread. — It's dot com 21:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

We are not denying that what we did is right. We were just discussing about the wiki and we believed that the template was useless. We were not going to out right delete it. We were simply going to put up the tags to see if anyone would mind. Please note that we do not have it put up for speedy delete. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying anybody's denying anything. Since most of this page has been about the procedure instead of whether this template should be deleted or not, I felt it important to comment first on that. That's all. — It's dot com 21:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Now, about the template. We have a category. We don't need an extention on that. We seriously need a standard on templates. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
A good guideline would be that templates are made to order lists in non-alphabetical order, while categories can do only that. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 22:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Or to exclude parts of the category. The strongbad_email.exe template only needs the different discs, but the category includes much more than that. — It's dot com 00:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I like that idea very much! Kind of what I was thinking (sorta) -- like have this template have "powered by the cheat" items only (a.k.a. those under the powered by the cheat button), and the old timey could've had only their main characters. That way people would be looking at, say old-timey homestar (or fhqwa.. oh I won't even try!) and then think "oh i wanna look at old timey strong bad!" and have to click once on the template to get there without having to go through the category or the old timey page itself. (We web surfers are a lazy bunch ain't we!?) For more involved things (a.k.a minor items/characters/details), they can use the category of course! I figured it would be defined as a convenient complement, not a replacement, to the category system (as it already has served itself to be). Not only that, it's good looking too! (Wow, my messages are only getting longer and longer.) --Stux 00:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
It would already be linked there. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
It would already be linked where? you mean the page, or the category? --Stux 00:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

The page. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I checked it out and noticed that that may not always be the case. For example old timey Homestar doesn't link to old timey stwong baad. --Stux 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That is sad. But I do not think that we need another template for old timey characters. Or am I reading this incorrectly? Rogue Leader / (my talk) 01:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe so, but it does link to Category:Old-Timey Characters, which links to way more information that you'd want to put on a template. Which is the point, I believe. --phlip TC 03:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
True. Very true. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 03:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Rogue, What do you refer to by "that is sad"? And yes, it is the point, I am trying to play devil's advocate here a little. --Stux 04:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That there is no link on the page to Strong Bad. Ok, this is not the place to discuss templates. Let us focus on this template. I doubt the usefulness of this. If this is kept, and I think that is a big if, this will need some huge cleaning. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 14:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
You could always just take off the "Somewhat PbtC" listing.
You really just have to look at the category and you will see all of these links. Even Somewhat PBTC. This is really not needed. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I still have mixed feelings about the template. My question is: is Powered by the Cheat important enough to merit a table to facilitate navigation (much in the same way Main Characters, Limozeen and Decemberween do)? --Stux 18:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the problam here, that there is no connection to all the toons, exept for the fact the The Cheat made them. not lie Cheat commandos or Strong Bad Emails. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ. They have their own section in the toons menu, and share many characteristics that reflect The Cheat's personality as presented in its description page. --Stux 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Elcool is right. There is a huge differfence between New Boots and mile. The only thing that it shows that relates to the chorts personality is that he has a huge ego. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That is fine. I don't see the differences as big as you do, and I seem to be the only one that thinks as such. They have been deemed big enough that this merits removal, so by all means, go ahead. --Stux 21:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Guestbooks

Recently, some users have discussed the current guestbook situation, and we are formally proposing to get rid of guestbooks. Please note that this decision is still being decided, and is not policy yet. If you wish to give us your opinion on this, then please tell us here.

Note: Be sure to read all the way to the very end of this thread and give an opinon in each of the sections.

End the practice of guestbooks

Support

  1. See reasons at Da Basement. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
  2. If it's for the good of the Wiki, guestbooks should go. — Has Matt? (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. — It's dot com 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. See Rogue Leader's comment. --videlectrix.pngENUSY discussionitem_icon.gif user.gifmail_icon.gif 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I'll go along with this - don't have a strong opinion on guestbooks, personally. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. See Venusy's comment. --DorianGray 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. If it's for the greater good of the wiki, I gotta vote to get rid of 'em. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. See reasons at Da Basement --minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. I want people to read my user page, not just to sign it without knowing what else is there. — DBK! 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Don't really see the point of them. There's nothing a gues book can do that a User talk page can't. -AtionSong 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. —FireBird|Talk 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. See my comment below. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 06:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. See comment below. – The Chort 13:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. They were fun at first, but now it's just taking up space. I would appriciate it if we could let them go. — Lapper (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Ditto Ation. -אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)
  16. Homsad I agree with the guys at Da Basement. Delete them!

Oppose

  1. I want the sweet sweet guestbooks. They let other users know they are there. --TheThingé 13:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Amost all of the people I know on the Wiki are from my or someone else's guestbook. Guestbooks make relationships! Bluebry 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Guestbooks make relationships, granted, but that's not the only way to make relationships. This H*R knowledge-base wiki is not designed to be a place to hang out and socialize. That's what the forums and IRC channel are for. The proper way to make relationships on this wiki is to make good edits; eventually people will notice you. One can supplement relationship-building through other venues while editing the wiki the way it was intended. —BazookaJoe 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Probably not as strong a point, but I like knowing that people have at least visited my page. I don't have a lot to offer on my page and I would actually like some comments. Restricting them to the talk page is probably best. NFITC1 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think that would be a good point if signing a guestbook meant that someone had actually looked at the page. When it's just a game, however, to see how many you can find and sign, it loses all meaning. Also, notice the little counter down at the bottom (where it says "This page has been accessed n times"). You can track that number to see how many people are visiting your page. — It's dot com 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Is there anything wrong with guestbooks?-- Benol, aka Coach B 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Benol, you should read the guestbook discussion on Da Basement. – The Chort 15:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. The guestbooks aren't killing anyone, they're just fun. Why should we all act like a bunch of proper stuck ups on a Homestar Runner fan site? Now, if this were turning into a trend on Wikipedia, that'd be one thing, but this is a wiki on a silly, fun cartoon, and guestbooks are one of my fondest memories of this web site. What's next, will saying things like "ARROW'D!" be banned? Of course, I'm sure everyone is going to hate on me now and diss me like a bunch of geeks and nerds, just like what they did when somebody proposed that they could be saying "Strong Bad paints Marzipan" in Strong Bad is a Bad Guy. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
    Just for info: I was the one who proposed that. I don't exactly recall being catcalled about it. --DorianGray
    Yeah, I noticed it was you right after I posted that. Well, I remembered everyone dissing you for that. There have been other times that users have been treated like crap for having a different opinion, though, and that wasn't a very good example, I guess. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
    I agree, this may seem a bit extreme to some, but this part of the HRWiki family of websites is primarily for the facts. A more relaxed, "anything goes" atmosphere exists at the Fanstuff Wiki. Though this site isn't Wikipedia, we still strive to emulate their formal style, and attempt to limit most of our work here to building the Knowledge Base. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's a good point. We should probably be on the look out for more things in Homestar Runner to pick at until they're not even funny anymore. For a more formal atmosphere, how about we all strangle each other as we argue over fhqwhgads? Is she a wiffle ball? Are Urban Dictionary's theories true? And only we visiting the Fanstuff Wiki should watch Homestar for fun. Instead, let's try to find Homestar as boring as possible, so that all we can do is analyze crap.
    So, who's with me? Are we going to save the guestbooks, or are we going to suck all the life out of the wiki and make pages like Strong Bad Saying, "I Mean I (Did Something)" until nobody visits besides us? All right, perhaps I went a bit far. Anybody who's offended, no hard feelings. I just want sweet guestbook freedom. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
    Uh, ok. Did you even bother to read the reasons why we wish to get rid of guestbooks? We are just trying to make life easier for patrollers. Besides, signing a guestbook does not mean that you are even remotely interested in their page. It just shows that you have a fast mouse and tilde finger. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 06:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Look, I hate to have the whole site against me, especially since I probably won't have as much luck winning you guys back as Strong Bad does, but no, I didn't read the excuse list. Why, because I know it won't affect my opinion on guestbooks. In my experience, I've visited way more talk pages thanks to guestbooks, and I actually check out what's there, so that I can get to know a little more about these peoples before I post. But if you'd like to liberate the site from those ridiculous fan activities, go ahead. I'll keep doing what I'm doing even if it means getting banned! I feel a song, erm, rap coming on...
    (Do not tell me what I can and cannot do when I rock) WHEN I ROCK, WHEN I ROCK...
    DO, DO, DO, DO NOT! Tell me what I can and cannot do when I rock! Original material my crew nonstop! We're keeping it fly and we'll turn it out, y'all feeling some of that? No doubt! Yes, that's right, I'm keeping my guestbook up no matter what! And maybe some people will respect me for my independence, but I seriously doubt that. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
    1) John Rue is a good man. 2) Breathe. Nothing's happening one way or the other for at least ten days. While persuasive oratory is called for, panic isn't; it's not like guestbooks are dead unless everyone's convinced in the next couple of hours. 3) You're not alone, per se; although I'm far from strongly supporting guestbooks, I don't strongly oppose them. 4) Since time isn't of the essence, do take the time to read the rest of this conversation (and also where it started). It helps to know what's already been said. 5) Although I'm sure the shock got your fight-or-flight reflexes going, so far no one is hating on anyone; the conversation so far has been civilized and non-angry. I really hope it stays that way through its course; please help it do so. 6) In closing, I'd just like to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed that a recent edit included the words "That's a big but." —AbdiViklas 07:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mr. Katana (or should I call you Mr. X?), Like a wise user once said to me when I was just new to the wiki and didn't have a username: "sarcasm doesn't exactly work wonders while attempting to argue a point". And now for the actual reply. We all want to have friends and meet new ones. If this fact was false we wouldn't have such sites as MySpace. Yes, the wiki is a way to make friends, contrary to what some people were saying here, and no, the Fanstuff is not the only place to goof around. But (and that's a big but) making friends through random signatures left on your userpage is not the way to do it. Some userpages told the signers to leave a comment next to their sig. While some posted things like "Thenks for helping me" or "We had fun that one time", alot of them left comments like "Yay! I'm number 27!" or "What? Another guestbook?!" showing that they don't really care about you, your userpage or how good your edits are. It just became a wall intended to be place for art pieces but ended up for ugly graffiti. If you want to make friends, have you thought of going to the chatroom? Having a project, a big one? Think about the wiki as school. An open one where you can make everything. Do you make friends by going to random people with a pen and writing something on their back? Or do you make friends by making something beautiful for all to see? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 06:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    First off, check what I posted before I was editing conflict'd. And second, too much ugly graffiti? I love too much ugly graffiti! No, seriously, where I come from graffiti is the finest art form around, but that's not really the point. This wiki isn't a school, unless it's the Crazy Go Nuts University, and I couldn't give a crap less whether people care about me or not, as you can plainly see. That's how I met basically everyone here, and that's how I met all my friends here who probably all hate me now. Anyway, even if it is a big waste of time, it's just freaking user pages, not actual articles, and from what I know, these guestbooks haven't caused any tragedy. So there, ban me for my guestbook. It's a Free Country, USA and I will not be silenced! — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
    1) Please see my most recent edit above. 2) Yeah, I've made the school analogy before, but I was just thinking "everything that's good or has the potential to be good about school, hopefully without the really crappy side effects." I.e. ideally it would be a place for creativity, spontaneity, and individual expression, plus communal, supportive collaboration, but without getting stuffed into lockers or simply called a dumb***. Hopefully it would not be a militaristic institution for the mass-producing of servile factory fodder either. 3) I'd be really surprised if anybody on the wiki hates you right now, including those with the opposite opinion on this argument. Guestbooks do make friendships (though meaningful talk page edits do so even better), and if the friends mean more to you than the guestbook, then even if guestbooks go the way of MXPX and the buffalo, you'll have what mattered in the first place. —AbdiViklas 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, we're on the same page. Or, more accurately, we're on two different pages which are right next to each other, but that counts too. One thing though, I don't think MXPX will be taking the buffalo route any time soon - I just heard them on Burnout Revenge and all. So, to close it up, I'll halfta go check that out, and hopefully none of my friends will take my flames personally. You might want to check out the Fight for the Guestbooks on my talk page, anyway. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
    Not long ago, before guestbooks were popular, we still managed to communicate, form friendships, plan projects, and so on... through the use of talk threads and IRC chat. No one is going to be asking you to stop communicating. No one is going to prevent you from reading user pages and posting meaningful comments on the talk pages. — It's dot com 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. I think having a guestbook is a good idea; i would however support the concept of moving them to a subpage. DJTehCheat M-E-H! 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • The primary objections seem to be 1) that they make userpage vandalism harder to spot, and 2) they make a lot of "empty" edits to check out in general. Stux suggested restricting them to User Talk pages; although it wouldn't solve the second issue it would solve the first. Although I don't like them, I'm not so sure they need to go entirely; they do have some benefit in community-building, plus banning them even from talk pages seems a little draconian. (If the defense were that they're not wiki-related talk, many of us would be guilty.) Certainly only one per user per lifetime should be allowed, but I'm not ready to vote to end them entirely and everywhere. —AbdiViklas 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think the reason that people are ready to get rid of them entirely is because they are not being used as real guestbooks. A signature on one does not mean that the user page was appreciated or even read. Some users actively campaign (via talk page spam) to try and get more signatures, which just drives up frivolous edits more. This is why I believe they should be eliminated, not just moved. — It's dot com 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish there was some way to keep certain guestbooks, such as the ones that were around before they were a fad, or the ones used actually as guestbooks, not as a challenge to see how many signatures they can get by a certain date... But there's not really a way to fairly decide that, is there? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 01:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's kind of like when one noisy student ruins the field trip for the whole class. — It's dot com 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    I hear you, Thunderbird. But yes, that would be quite difficult to justify reasonably: "Your guestbook is appropriately motivated; you can keep it! But your guestbook is a mercenary guestbook; you can't!" I personally don't find the argument of function compelling (not "proper" guestbooks); frivolous edit and talk page spamming are concerns, though. —AbdiViklas 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since I seem to be saying a lot in defense of guestbooks, I just want to play the other side for a sec.: There's no reason people can't simply link to blogs or personal websites which have guestbooks of their own. —AbdiViklas 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Just curious, but why are you saying so much in the defense of guestbooks? You don't have one. Almost none of the people with whom you collaborate most often have one. Have you ever formed a meaningful friendship through one? I myself have signed a few guestbooks (back when that's what they were), but nothing substantial came of it. Again, I'm just curious. :) — It's dot com 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If this thing didn't evolve to be a fad I would even fight for the right to keep them. But now they just litter the recent changes page. This days are the first time I had to use the MainSpace filter to a actually see the edits — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally! I am so tired of this stupid fad! You sign one guestbook, another million pop up. They serve no purpose to the wiki and, frankly, they're now really unoriginal. Are we just owning and signing guestbooks because everyone else is? I mean, when it comes to taste, everyone just follows each other like sheep. Why else are the music charts here in England full of crap? – The Chort 13:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • just because you consider it a fad, it's a USER PAGE. as in, the USER gets to decide what to do with it. and if they want a guestbook, it's not up for the wiki to decide. this sounds like a meaningless rule designed to give more control to a humble majority. "I don't like jumproping! nobody else can jumprope from now on!"DJTehCheat M-E-H! 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, user page control is not absolute. We do give quite a bit of leeway as to what you can put on a user page, but there are certain restrictions. If the community decides (and not by just a simple majority) that it's best if we eliminate guestbooks, then we will. But we're not taking this decision lightly—It has simply reached a boiling point. — It's dot com 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is to end the practice, then what?

Delete them altogether

  1. — It's dot com 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. DorianGray 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —FireBird|Talk 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm having a hard time understanding this position. All the arguments against guestbooks, it seems to me, center around what happens when people edit them (clogs recent changes, etc.). Aside from the possibility that having them around might incite new ones (which the "closed" tag idea below ought to curtail), what exactly are they hurting? Even if deletion is necessary, is there a reason to go in and delete them by force with a "the notice has been up" defense rather than starting by asking the user to do so? It seems so... Vogon. —AbdiViklas 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Keep in mind that almost nothing is actually ever deleted from the wiki. If people want to visit their old guestbook, it will still be in the history. You ask what they're hurting, and several people have said that they clog the recent changes. While I agree with this, it isn't the basis of my opposition to them because I think it is a weak argument and is only a side-effect of the underlying problem: namely, at some point in the not-too-distant past, guestbooks reached a critical mass and exploded. When that happened, they lost all meaning and became a game. In other words, if guestbooks were currently being used as they were intended to be used, then I would fight tooth and nail to keep them and to heck with the annoyance of the patrollers. But they're not, and I have no reasonable expectation that simply moving them would change the current behavior even one iota. — It's dot com 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Homsad Delete them!

Move existing ones to subpages and lock them

  1. — Has Matt? (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) I think that if someone really really values their guestbook, they should have the option of moving it to a subpage and keeping it there for the sake of documenting history.
    Couldn't they copy it to their own computer? Also, they can still see it in their page history. — It's dot com 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm just saying they should have the option. By the way, I'm saving my guestbook to my computer.
    I think we should fight subpage creep as much as possible. If we disallow guestbooks, then those subpages would no longer serve the project. But if someone just wants to see one, all they would need to do is look at an old version of their page. — It's dot com 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    There are other reasons for wanting to keep one than sentimental value. Guestbooks—like user pages in general—are excusable exercises in vanity. The whole point of one is so people can see how many people like you, or at least have acknowledged you. Though this may not be a particularly noble motivation, it's hardly unreasonable. —AbdiViklas 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    But again, it's not like the comments would disappear from the histories. Why add to the already growing problem of subpages? Talk page discussions are just as good as (nay, better than) guestbook entries, because actual thought goes into leaving messages. — It's dot com 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Bluebry 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) As said above - Most people I met were from guestbooks.
    *sigh* Once more, you would have a chance to copy the info to your computer, or look at it in your page history. (Broken record = me) — It's dot com 03:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. For someone who knows what it's like to have something that took a long time taken from him, I'm voting about sub-paging and locking. At least give them that. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Other

  1. Restrict them to talk pages; one per user; and require input beyond signatures. They could even be thematic; Has Matt's list of "Things I Wish Homsar Would Say" would be a good example (except in this scenario it would be on his talk page). The goal would be meaningful statements that would keep all the good aspects of guestbooks (recognition, friendship-building) without the qualities that started this discussion. —AbdiViklas 07:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    But who will decide what's meaningful and what's not? Some will argue that "YA!!! IM #143! =^^=" is quite meaningful. And if some kind of standard is reached, who will remove the bad stuff from the user's page? The user? Sysop? Having something you wrote removed can triger alot of flame wars. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, good questions. First: once we're talking about talk pages, I for one would be cool with pretty much anything. As I've hinted earlier, some might not find discussions of the absoluteness of absolute pitch the most meaningful talk page content. But I think the policy could be stated fairly clearly: don't just leave your name; try to say something substantive that will make the user happy or tell him or her something about you. The fact that your #143 only makes you happy, and isn't a particularly intrinsic personal quality. Secondly: Whoa now, yeah. If this conversation results in a change in policy, then I feel like it should be implemented by leaving the owner a note asking to do it him or herself. He or she can then either delete or move and convert it (though the vast majority would need to just start from scratch—which isn't so bad, really). Rather than moving to subpages and locking, my proposal would be to add a tag to existing guestbooks telling other users not to add to them, and then enforce it with warnings. It's not like we're dealing with vandalism on the Main Page here; once somebody accidentally signs a "closed" guestbook and is warned, they're not going to continue. If they do, they need to be banned anyway. But closed STUFFs, for instance, survive just fine without locking. —AbdiViklas 07:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    That's a decent idea, but it definitely achieves rigamarole status. I vote for keeping it the way it is, but like I say, good one anyway. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
    Oh-ho-ho-ho! (devilish laugh) Sorry about that, I just felt like this place needed a random Strong Bad quote. Okay, back on task. Why don't we just put something in the standards page that says something like, "Although guestbooks in the Wiki are discouraged, you are allowed to have one guestbook on a subpage or on your talk page." Just another idea I'm throwing out here. You'll probably find some problems with this idea one way or another, I just felt it needed to be mentioned. — Has Matt? (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    I would not have a problem with comments restricted to talk pages, but why would an organized guestbook be necessary there? First of all, there's nothing that prevents someone from starting a thread: "Hey, I read X on your page and you rock!" I have done that myself several times. Second, as we have clearly seen, there seems to be something wrong with a structured list with the label "Guestbook" that causes certain people to go into a frenzy, which completely negates the whole reason to have people sign it (i.e. to indicate that the user page was read and appreciated). — It's dot com 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    How about this. If the guest book bannination is accepted. how about we give people with guest books 2-3 days to move to a sub page and have a sysop lock it. If they fail to do this, I think we should just delete the guest books that are left. And Has Matt?, I kinda think that that defeats the purpose of this vote. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, we're way past the point of simply discouraging them. Also, if we permitted them on subpages at all, then we'd might as well just move them to a subpage for them. — It's dot com 16:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is to end the practice and delete them altogether, when should that happen?

  1. About ten days after the consensus is reached here, they should be deleted. A notice should be put up on the Recent Changes page and at the top of watchlists. — It's dot com 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    And the notices have been put up. — Has Matt? (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    (Notices of the current discussion, that is, not of deletion.) —AbdiViklas 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Right. Up there I meant that similar notices would be put up saying something like "Now would be a good time to archive that locally before it's gone" or something. — It's dot com 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Do you think you could put a notice on the Main Page as well, like we did for donations and NSMC? — Has Matt? (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    The thinking is probably that this is an issue that doesn't really concern IPs; if someone's a user they'll probably see it either on recent changes or when they log in (it's on the "successful login" page). —AbdiViklas 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, this isn't something we need to bother people with who are just here to read. — It's dot com 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Homsad
Retrieved from "http://hrwiki.org/wiki/HRWiki_talk:Standards"
Personal tools