HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

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

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

Current | Archive 1 (1-10) | Archive 2 (11-20)
Archive 3 (21-30) | Archive 4 (31-40) | Archive 5 (41-50)
Archive 6 (51-60) | Archive 7 (Logo discussion) | Archive 8 (61-82)
Archive 9 (83-102) | Archive 10 (103-117)

Contents 1 Featured mark? 2 IRC scheduled chats 3 Sysop Nominations 4 Question From a Sysop Wannabe 5 Audio Articles 6 Don't get us mixed up 7 Subtitles 8 Expanding the gamut of styles 9 Preserve birthday card as part of the history 10 Deletion Policy 11 A Vandal? 12 Semi-protection implemented 13 Limited editability for user pages 14 Strange "Testing" 15 Redirects to userspaces 16 To be reorganized 17 Homsar Main Page 18 Automatic links for new users 18.1 New Welcome format 19 About this wiki page 20 An idea!

Featured mark?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRC scheduled chats

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

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

Sysop Nominations

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

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

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

Question From a Sysop Wannabe

Dear Sysops,

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

Sysop Wannabe,

Unme93 ^T/_C

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

Audio Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't get us mixed up

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

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

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

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

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

Subtitles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding the gamut of styles

Discussion moved to HRWiki talk:Logo redesign 2006.

Preserve birthday card as part of the history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what; I'll make a possible guidelines article in Microsoft Word and make it one of my subpages. When I'm done, I'll link to it from here and we can critique it, adding, subtracting, rivising, etc. as we go to create a fine policy. Sound good? I'll go and do that now, so don't expect to hear from me for about an hour. -Brightstar Shiner 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: User:Brightstar Shiner/Deletion Guidelines. I took the guidelines from the ideas posted in this disscussion, mainly E.L. Cool's. Note that this is but the first version; feel free to point out any problems or suggestions you might want to tell me. -Brightstar Shiner 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A Vandal?

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

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

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

Semi-protection implemented

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just had a thought... why are we still full-protecting the images on the main page? Is there a reason we're not semi-protecting them too? phlip ^T_C 06:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say so that they don't get defaced whilst they are on the main page. --Stux 12:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no reason that I can think of. Just waiting for someone to bring it up (how passive of me...) —BazookaJoe 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I still support full protection of images on the main page. They were fully protected when the main page templates weren't protected at all. — It's dot com 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. It makes sense, too, coz semi-protection locks out just IPs (right?). But IPs can't upload images anyway (right?), so it doesn't do a whole lot for images. Also, no offense to anyone out there (coz I'm not thinking of anyone specific), but a lot of users can't make very good images. JPGs, poor cropping, etc. Aside from vandalism, no one wants that on the main page either. --DorianGray 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Highly visible images need to retain their integrity at all times. In answer to Dorian's uncertainty, semi-protection locks out both IPs and users who are not yet auto-confirmed. IPs can't upload images, but I believe that users who aren't auto-confirmed still can; the lockout definitely includes moving and editing of semi-protected pages, but I'm not sure if they can upload. If they can, perhaps we should consider locking that off as well? — Lapper (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm that's a good question: clicking on "upload file" does not preclude me from seeing the form. I'd like to try uploading a picture over a protected page, but I'd rather work with a test picture -- unless Dot Com or Tom or one of the other guys know definitively if protection prevents the picture from being replaced? --Stux 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It does. — It's dot com 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Limited editability for user pages

The only people who should ever need to edit a user page is that user themselves, and sysops (in case there's inappropriate material). Maybe there's a rare case where someone asks another user to help with their page, but it shouldn't be hard to set up a system where editing user pages is restricted to sysops, the selfsame user, and a list of usernames that that user trusts to edit their page. DeFender1031 14:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there's inappropriate content, normal users can also remove or censor that, too. Not just sysops. Because, it's harder for inappropriate user content to be removed by only sysops when they just make up .3% of the population. Now, the other thing I'm worried about is this trusted user thing. If a user's on a trusted user list, and decides to start trolling, or vandalize friendly (as in, the two users edit each other's user pages non-stop), then only a few people can revert that. Now, that won't be MUCH of a problem, as sysops are constantly logged in and will be able to revert/block such trolls. Plus, we have the semi-protection system, which pretty much allows all trusted users to edit semi-protected pages. In conclusion, my point is, why try to perfect a pretty much perfected system? Bluebry 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because twice now I've seen "I suck" added to a user page without the user's knowledge, once being my own and I think people's identities and descriptions would be a lot safer by my method. DeFender1031 15:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, identities and descriptions? Do you mean, what users put on their own user pages? That, and you've only seen it TWICE. Trust me, I've had it happen to me tons of times, and to be honest, it's not something to worry about. I bring up a vandal who, how do I put this, uploaded an inappropriate drawing done in MS Paint. Now, this user could set up an account, upload the file when the sysops aren't around, and then put it on his/her user page and trusted users have to sit there and wait. And that's why semi-protection works. Bluebry 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then how about a user rating system (say 1 to 10) where users can edit their own rating and lower, but not higher, i.e. sysops are a 10, anonamous IPs are a 0, and everyone else is somewhere in the middle, and the rating is an algorithm based on the number and frequency of useful (ie. not reverted, not talk page, not repeat edits to the same article) edits they have made. Such a system could also be useful for other things as well, such as:

• Giving the sysops an idea of who deserves to be made a sysop
• Listing edits made by ratings lower than x (which have a higher percentage of needing to be reverted, given that the lower numbers are the newer users, or the ones who make incorrect edits)
• Restricting editing access of featured articles to people above a certain rating
• allowing a few select non-sysop people (rating 9 and maybe 8) to edit the main page

just to name a few. We invented STUFF, why can't we invent this too? DeFender1031 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Giving the sysops an idea of who deserves to be made a sysop: When they see someone who deserves it because of their amazing edits, not some ranking, they decide if they need to be a sysop.
• Listing edits made by ratings lower than x (which have a higher percentage of needing to be reverted, given that the lower numbers are the newer users, or the ones who make incorrect edits): It seems to be a system where we only trust those with high numbers, and it's hard to climb up the status ladder.
• Restricting editing access of featured articles to people above a certain rating: Well, we try to limit editing featured pages, and we restrict featured images, so it wouldn't hurt a lot if an annony makes a few small edits to something on the Main Page. Otherwise, we can revert them.
• allowing a few select non-sysop people (rating 9 and maybe 8) to edit the main page: The Main Page is pretty much edited through templates that I believe most people can edit.

In conclusion, it seems to be a complete social status system based on seniority or artificial trust, rather than on good edits or good faith. It also seems harder to climb the ladder, as I've said, making it basically a site for regulars only. Bluebry 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. DeFender1031 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange "Testing"

I just wanted to mention that I've noticed a few edits ([2] [3] [4]) that reveal an unusual pattern (I'd call in vandalism) in editing. I know it's not big now, but I'm starting to wonder if this is a prelude to to a more automated... um... "attack". --Stux 16:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this too. At first, they didn't necessarily seem like bad-faith edits, but their consistency made me suspicious just as it did you. Fortunately, one of the sources of these edits has been taken care of, along with an IP range, but time will tell if the problem persists. Trey56 07:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to userspaces

Some users have odd unusual characters in their usernames. It's awkward to remember all the accented and umlauted letters for the average American, to whom this wiki is targeted. I suggest we adopt the policy of allowing a redirect to users whose names contain one or more unusual characters which is spelled how a normal Americasn with a normal keyboard and a normal command of the English language would type it. Thoughts? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, don't have a problem with this, and it is mildly frustrating when I want to reach Heimstern La-umlat-ufer's User/Talk/Contributions page... but at the same time, I don't exactly do that very frequently. Does anyone really believe we'll ever have a non-troll "Heimstern La-no-umlat-ufer" at any point? --Jay (Gobble) 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Already have. Heimstern Läufer 00:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He said "non-troll". Any user who joined with a name similar to Heimi's would be advised to change names anyway. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Heimy, those are all troll edits. I agree that redirects of this type can be useful, voting yes... oh wait, this isn't a STUFF debate... DeFender1031 00:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support a policy where we allow one redirect if a username has non-English characters in the name (or something that can't be typed easily into a URL, like a question mark). Similarly, if a user has a widely-known nickname, the user could use the redirect for that purpose (for example, I would expect to be allowed to redirect "User:Dot com" to my page). (Case-sensitive redirects will very soon be unnecessary, so that should not be a concern here.) — It's dot com 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dot com, what if someone has an odd char in their name AND a widely known nick? then what? DeFender1031 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we really do need those redirects, or if this can easily be handled by the search function. Interestingly, Heimi can be found without using an umlaut, while Dot com can't be found without "It's". Maybe we should have a look at the search algorithm to take care of these things automatically. It would save us a lot of hassle instead of debating which redirects are allowed and who exactly is a widely know user. Loafing 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DeFender: Then that user would have to decide which is more important. I think one should be the limit, with restrictions similar to the ones on HRWiki:Signature, lest someone go crazy and create 20 redirects. Incidentally, a lot of users have a redirect from a username change, and we have quietly allowed those to exist. — It's dot com 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To be reorganized

I've thought for a while that the to be deleted/merged/redirected/moved/etc. templates, categories, and discussions have been needlessly fractured. Essentially, all of those templates and categories seek to answer just one question: whether any particular content should exist as its own article (or at all) on the wiki. On top of that, a lot of the time a discussion that starts out toward deletion suddenly swings toward merge (or vice versa), and tagging borderline articles to raise awareness of their existence tends to cause their creators (who are often new users) to panic. I therefore think we need to combine all of these functions into one process, and at the same shift the emphasis from deletion to discussion.

Let me outline my master plan:

                                     |
                             HRWiki Maintenance
                                     |       |___...
                                     |
                             Page Maintenance
                                 |      |
                   ______________|      |______________
                   |                                   |
                   |                                   |
          Pages for Discussion             Pages for Speedy Deletion
           |                |                          |
           |                |________                  |
Articles for Discussion             |      (pages tagged with {{delete}})
      |                             |
      |                             |
(articles/talk)      (pages/talk in other namespaces)

I believe these suggestions will help make us a happier, more efficient wiki. — It's dot com 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Great system! I'll take it! I'll take twelve! DeFender1031 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... a tad confusing, but it seems good (from what I understand). I'm all for it. Bluebry 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it! When it's implemented, it'll be so much simpler than what we have now. Loafing 23:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great! -- Tom 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WERE A DIAPER! I'm convinced — it's a good idea. Trey56 09:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re (B), what of {{mergefrom}}? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  07:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that one would just disappear entirely. {{tobediscussed}} purposefully doesn't indicate whether an article has been proposed to be merged since article merit discussions often shift between merging and deleting. Since we don't specify ahead of time what the proposed action for an article is, we wouldn't put a template on the page that the article in question might be merged with. Trey56 09:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for {{mergefrom}} to go anywhere. If there's a strong case for merging, it could still come in handy to draw attention to the discussion at the other end. — It's dot com 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd like to mention that the mergefrom template should also follow a similar style now to tobediscussed. BTW the templates look great! Now to delete... er discuss! ;) --Stux 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So based on this test I've compiled what I beleive should be the changes in categories that would be necessary. The following 4 categories are new:

Articles for Discussion | Pages for Discussion | Pages for Speedy Deletion | Merge Targets.

The existing categories, along with my suggested moves/actions are as follows:

• Talk to be deleted -> Articles for Discussion (maybe)
• To be deleted -> Pages for Speedy Deletion (move)
• To be merged -> Merge Targets (move)
• To be redirected (removed or moved to Pages for Discussion)

Hmmmm. That's about it. --Stux 02:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, those all (except ttbd) pretty much need to go to Category:Pages for Discussion. I've taken care of 'em. This has all now been implemented, for the most part. There will naturally be an adjustment period as we get used to it, and we may find some things we need to tweak (some of the category descriptions could be looked at, for example), but the basic structure and functionality should be fully in place. — It's dot com 05:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Homsar Main Page

(This discussion was originally on the sandbox and refers to this)

I think we should make this an easter egg reached from the real main page somehow... anyone think it's a good/funny idea? DeFender1031 23:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that would be AWESOME. But, for that we need a sysop, a hidden link, and this to be a subpage. -- Super Martyo boing! 23:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, other people are trying to get actual WORK done. (What? ME? Work? No) -- Super Martyo boing! 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't touch my severance package. Loafing 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You could post it in the fanstuff wiki. --Stux 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What did Loafing mean? Nevermind. That was a "no". Homestar-Winner (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Errm, who touched your severence package? ArE wE jUsT tHrOwInG iT dOwN tHe ToIlEt At ThIs PoInT? -- sUpEr MaRtYo BoInG! 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be kinda hard to post this on the Fanstuff Wiki.

It's a Homsar quote from Georgia_Tech#Part_II:_Q_.26_A. Loafing 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It could go on that baleeted nonsense page that one user made. Homestar-Winner (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, but it'd be REALLY cool on the main page DeFender1031 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that and I'd like that too, but Loafing said not to touch his severance package. Homestar-Winner (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, he was joking:

<Loaf|uni> personally, i like the idea. but also note my original edit summary
<DeFender1031> you don't think DC will go for it?
<Loaf|uni> i don't think so
<DeFender1031> aww
<Loaf|uni> and i'm not sure if it's a good idea, either
<DeFender1031> that guy's too serious all the time
<Loaf|uni> it would have been a perfect main page for april fools, though
<DeFender1031> true
<DeFender1031> but
<DeFender1031> listen, it's a very characteristic thing to do
<DeFender1031> homsar is always "the secwet guy"
<DeFender1031> why not have a homsar main page?

DeFender1031 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Note how I said "and i'm not sure if it's a good idea, either". Loafing 00:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you like the idea but aren't sure if it's a good one... that makes perfect sense. DeFender1031 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If Dot com agreed to it,Loafing, would you? Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like where this is going. a) Dot Com is not the Oscar the Grouch of the wiki b) I do have my own opinion about things. Loafing 00:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to really sound like that. I have messed up what I have meant to say on this wiki several thymes. Plus I didn't expect you to notice that comment. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me outline my master plan. I will A) Drop my grapes, b) Start a petition to put this on the Main Page as an Easter Egg, and c) If that doesn't work, post a link to a revision with this on it to Venusy, and ask him to please post this on his thingy-ma-bobber's page. -- Super Martyo boing! 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't have "petitions" on the wiki. If someone comes up with an idea, we discuss it and see if we can form a consensus. It's much more productive this way. Loafing 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree — reformatting those votes into comments would probably be better. Trey56 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I agree with this idea. DeFender1031 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with the idea. This encyclopedia does not need a "joke" main page for any reason at all; ideas like this might be more well received at HRFWiki or possibly even the Forum, as a recommendation. — Lapper (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a clever idea (props to Super Martyo Brother and others who worked on this). To pull it off, though, I think it's got to be more than funny — it's got to be laugh-out-loud hilarious. I'm just not sure if we're going to be able to refine it to that point (at least, I know I'm not funny enough to make it that good). So, I like the idea, but I currently disagree with pursuing it further. Trey56 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: we are a knowledge base first, not a playground. While we have some fun, it's all directed in a way that supports our main mission: to faithfully record TBC's creation. If you want to be creative yourselves, the Fanstuff Wiki is an excellent place for that. I don't see an appropriate purpose in having a goofy main page as an option in a knowledge-base wiki. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am neutral. I think it would be cool to have this maybe as a subpage, but for now, no secret links on the main page. Also, yes, this wiki is a knowledge base and not a playground, and anyone who wants to create stuff like this should either go to the fanstuff wiki or do it in the sandbox, have it on a subpage, etc... You guys who are sugesting that we take this to the fanstuff wiki, It would be mecca-hard to do (at least while still keeping the links). -- Super Martyo boing! 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Trey, if I get a picture of Homsar carved into an actual watermelon, will it have achieved laugh-your-head-off status?

WHAT?! You were the first name on the petition, back before they removed it. DeFender1031 04:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Links on the fanstuff are not that hard. Just append HRWiki: to each link and voilà! Problem is of course all links will be light blue. But that's something a little <span> magic can't fix! Heck, even a nice little template can be used to make it easy to make the links look just as they would here! --Stux 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the petition got deleted i forgot to post that I agree

Okay, it is now officially on the fanstuff wiki. Now quit buggin' me. -- Super Martyo boing! 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic links for new users

This discussion is continued from here.

Welcoming of users has been brought up again, and I'd like to revisit the idea of automatic links to our standards, policies, and help pages on the user talk page of new users. This would not be intended to take the place of a personal welcome from a wiki member. The so-called welcome that most users get now is just a list of links anyway, and these links are posted immediately upon registration, so why don't we go ahead and completely automate the process. Then, after a brief amount of time has passed (so that it doesn't look automatic), or after a few edits by the user, an established user can extend a real, personal welcome. — It's dot com 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea! I don't like the way welcoming happens right now. Sure, some of the welcoming templates are cute, but it's still pretty impersonal from the point of view of the new user. I think it would be nice if the welcoming templates/system had personalization based on the new user rather than based on the welcomer, if that makes any sense -- instead of spending a lot of time creating a template that fits your personality, think of a friendly comment about the user's first edits or their username. Homestar Coder 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea — up till yesterday, I opposed it on the grounds that it would be less personal to have an automatic welcome. However, as Dot com and H*C have pointed out above, it is actually more personal because it encourages a "real" welcome based on a new user's edits or userpage info. Trey56 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Me likey, me likey! DeFender1031 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't do a whole lot of welcoming... In fact, I only did it once, to make sure my friend got a good welcome (i.e. something less distracting, and more useful). But then, that's why I think my point's valid. I like this idea as well. --DorianGray 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but how would it be implemented? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Implementation, in my opinion, should be fully automated and added, with scripting, to a user's talk once he or she is auto-confirmed and has not been blocked. — Lapper (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

1. I do want to reiterate something from Abdi's previous post in the original post that struck me as really important: But I feel strongly that as long as initial contact can be human, and can be perceptibly human, that's preferable. (Emphasis added.) We must still keep in mind that this must be perceived as more or just as human as the status quo. Otherwise we'll lose a little something of our hospitality.
2. It's likely that welcoming committee participation will drop once this is implemented. That is, more people will rely on the auto-welcoming system, no matter what.
3. Keep in mind that even with our current system, where templated messages are quickly removed/ignored, oftentimes the new users will still go to the people who welcomed them for questions/advice. It's this first contact that can prove to be a lasting one. If it's electronic that might lose a little something. Might as well just plop it in their page right away as a "talk default" or send them an email with that information. Then a real person can leave a human message.

I have personally kept away from joining the welcoming committee because I didn't want to subscribe myself to a "welcoming quota" or template. But the information provided does serve a purpose. Instead I prefer to drop an informal "hello" here and there to certain editors. But that's just my style. Yes the current system is broken, and the autowelcome is a good idea but whose consequences we must evaluate. I think instead of providing a technical solution, we should also provide a "procedural" solution by changing the way the welcoming comittee does its work. (Be it via training or whatever). --Stux 19:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To address your points:

1. There will still be human contact. The welcoming templates as they stand barely qualify as human contact, because it simply involves heading to a new user's page and typing {{substr:welcome}} or whatever. A personalized greeting from a user that doesn't rely on a template qualifies as more constructive human content, IMO. Let the machine provide the links, let the human provide specific help/comments.
2. I really don't think welcoming committee participation will drop. People are constantly itching for things to do on the wiki, and changing the requirements to providing a personal comment rather than a template would probably not decrease participation at all. If someone drops out because they're too lazy to write a comment instead of just dropping a template, then that's fine by me.
3. I've actually been concerned in the past that our welcoming templates are a little too...overwhelming, maybe? I know if I were new to the wiki, did an edit, and immediately had a user provide me with Help and Standards links (even in a friendly manner), I would wonder what I did wrong. If they are provided by a machine (and the message is labelled as automatic), then the user still gets the useful links without feeling that they're being corrected, and the welcoming user can provide an actual positive or relevent comment, like "Grood jorb!" Homestar Coder 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Coder, I find your arguments very sound and convincing. :) With the consensus seeming to reach that this is a good idea, I then have two three more issues to raise:

1. What kind of content should this auto-template contain?
2. At what specific period should it be posted? (Immediately during account creation? After first edit? After first 3 Mainspace edits? After the first 5 Mainspace edit, 1 user edit, 3 user talk edits, and a root canal?)
3. What of the old welcoming committee? What welcoming instructions should be posted? "Scrap all your welcome templates. Make sure you only post original messages on welcomed users page. Here's a list of suggested topics of discussion:"

This should probably stem 3 separate discussions in the Welcoming committee talk page (I think) if the plan is put forth in motion. --Stux 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be three separate discussions, but since I'm lazy, I'll reply to it all at once! ;)

1. The welcoming committee page has a sample template which could form the basis for an automated template. It should definately have some indication that it's automated, so the user doesn't wonder who gave them the message.
2. That is really tricky, but my initial reaction is in favor of "after first edit." They should be given the helpful links before they do too much editing. Doing it upon account creation might also be okay...
3. I don't think you need to scrap welcome templates. Maybe scrap part of the text inside them -- replace the stuff the automated template provides with a "{{{1}}}", and use the {{{1}}} to post a personalized message, for instance. I'm not sure about "only post original messages," that seems a little totalitarian maybe, but suggested topics of discussion would be a great idea. Homestar Coder 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2. It would probably need to be to be immediately upon account creation. It depends on some system event to trigger it, and the one that would involve the least amount of hassle logistically would be the new-user function. Isn't that the purpose of the automatic links, anyway? To be there right away for the new user to read? — It's dot com 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Yeah! That makes the most sense, I'm all for that. --Stux 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Homestar Coder 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Trey56 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts. First, let's not think of this as "auto-welcoming" - it is NOT welcoming, as that's something a person does. This is the providing of essential links to a new user. I'm all for that. Second, I'm all in favor of welcomes being less scripted and more personal. Currently, a welcome is the mindless substing of a template on a page, and that's hardly a welcome at all. So I think I support this. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, this isn't welcoming (I've tried to get away from the term autowelcome). To move forward, we need content for MediaWiki:Newuserlinks (Talk) and MediaWiki:Newuserlinkssummary (Talk) — It's dot com 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a little Devil's advocate here...What's wrong with the old system. I for one enjoy welcoming new users in my own way. What is the problem that needs fixing? Why go through the effort of making an automated process? Are there users that are not getting welcome. Are people unhappy with the welcome that they get? What does automation offer that current system does not? I don't think it is a good thing to do just because we have the capability to do it. I think an examination of our object is critical here. What do want out of this that we don't have right now. I R F 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, I hope I can respond adequately:

• By forcing the "auto-help-links" we take away the "thumb-twitching" response of some editors to "beat others" to welcoming and increase their "welcome count" which apparently results in just slapping an Air Force sticker ... er slapping a welcome template in a talk page. So people do get welcomed, but the impression is that this is still too impersonal.
• With the "auto-help-links" welcomers can only now type in a real welcome message, and we can make it absolutely clear that we want it to be a welcome message hopefully aimed more at characteristics of the new user (of which we admittedly known nothing about then) than the welcomer (though portraying the welcomer's personality would be a good thing).
• (We also have less of a chance of running into minor misunderstandings between welcomers and welcomed users that have occurred in the past.)

--Stux 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IRF, you'll still be able to welcome in exactly the same way you're welcoming now, except that the "helpful links" stuff will be taken care of by the automated system (so you can take it out of your template) and we'll be encouraging users to leave personal notes when they welcome rather than just {{substr:welcome}}, which it looks like you already do, so you're good to go. Basically, we want to 1. Make sure all users get the helpful links; 2. By automating the boring/generic part of the welcome, encouraging more personally helpful tips and comments in the welcome; 3. Reduce competition for how many people you have welcomed. Homestar Coder 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think someone's been programming in C a little too long ;). You mean {{subst:welcome}} right Homestar Coder? :) And yes, hopefully the welcoming competition would die down. Heck, we can even encourage people so that new users can be welcomed by more than one user! As it stands, generally one person leaves a welcome template, and that's it. --Stux 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I code in Java, so I'm not sure where that substr came from. Insanity perhaps ;) And yeah, now that welcoming won't require a huge template with lots of links, we could certainly have new users welcomed by more than one user. That would be another improvement. Homestar Coder 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is ready to go live. What do you think? MediaWiki:Newuserlinks (Talk); MediaWiki:Newuserlinkssummary (Talk) — It's dot com 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. At first, I was unsure about automatic welcomes, but now I'm convinced. Nice jorb on the text, Dot com. Loafing 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but remember, this isn't a welcome. The bot will provide links and guidance, but we still require people to actually make each new member feel welcome. That's not any less imposrtant - in fact, it's as important as ever. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That's actually why I'm convinced now. It'll just take me a while to not call it a an automatic welcome ;-) Loafing 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As a freshly welcomed user, I feel that I might (at least theoretically) provide some insight in this respect. My initial welcome was nice, but I unintentionally baleeted my welcomer’s welcome template and was mistaken as a possible vandal. After all was said and done, the users that defended me and generally chatted me up made me feel comfortable and at home. trey56 and loafing were especially nice to me, and I found that the userpages of these and other megahuge users helped me see what the whole community was about. The links were moderately helpful at best. So until next week, you keep welcoming me, and I’ll keep deleting your templates. I mean, thanking you. TheDude 03:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, this is enabled. — It's dot com 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New Welcome format

So now that we have the auto-information-link tool up and running, is being welcomed any more? I peeked at a few random users in that list that have created the accounts for more than a day, and even though most have no contributions, no one has tried to break the ice (even if these were sock-puppets-to-be) by leaving a little note. It's all automatic now. Most of those with blue links in their user pages have been welcomed (by sysops mostly) but some with red link pages and even those with creative edits have been somewhat ignored. So what will the new procedure be? Ignore new registrations until they make edits? Should we leave notes even if the accounts may seem dormant? Also, the HRWiki:Welcoming committee page has not been updated with the new information. --Stux 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually hoping someone would take the initiative of the last sentence; I believe the Welcoming Committee should be completely redone. The information should be rewritten, the member list should be cleared, and serious users should re-sign up to participate. I'd also appreciate it if we could keep only users who are doing, (or wholeheartedly attempting to do) what they signed up for on the list. — Lapper (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About this wiki page

After posting this note I realized that there really is no page explicitly describing the scope of this project. That is, although there is lots of technical information available, I couldn't find anything that described what kind of information this wiki is gathering and outlining what the substance of those edits should be. As it stands it's more of a trial-and-revert thing. Which isn't bad, but it would be nice to have something "official" to point to people. --Stux 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like a mission statement or something like that? --Jangles5150 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

An official mission statement would be useful to quote. I like the idea. — Lapper (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

An idea!

I think that we hould have some little feature then enables regular, non-sysop users to block people. That way, if Willy on Wheels, or the NSMC vandal comes back, we don't just have thirty-some people doing all the blocking, and we can stop the attack in progress faster. --Jangles5150 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know I'm not a sysop!

That feature would be so heavily abused that the risks would outweigh the benefits one-hundred-fold. On that note, we currently have a virtual twenty-four-seven watch on the wiki and haven't had a rampant, un-halted vandalism for months and months now. You should feel safe with the current state of the wiki; if not, perhaps provide a more realistic solution. — Lapper (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. Also, we can't really predict vandalism. It's like they say "There's always a calm before a storm". What if, these months of non-vandilism are leading up to some big thing, say the return of NSMC? --Jangles5150 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is that with the current system vandalism (even repeat vandalism) is still stopped relatively quickly. DeFender1031 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. We really have a 24-hour watch on the HRWiki? That's amazing. --Jangles5150 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's NSMC? Homestar-Winner (talk)

Well, yeah, and i think we even have it better than some other wikis. The recent changes IRC channel really helps. I can (and usually do) review edits mere seconds after they're made. DeFender1031 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Homestar-winner: See HRWiki:A History#NSMC. — Has Matt? (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dot com laid out the time zones at one point... anyway, with all of our respective uptimes, there's probably a 90 in 100 chance that there's at least one sysop able to be contacted during any given minute. Loafing's in New Zealand, Elcool's in Israel, etc. — Lapper (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and given that Phlip, Elcool and I have no life, we've got the non-US part of the globe pretty much covered =3 Loafing 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Any sysops in New England? Sam the Man

Do we have any East Coast sysops at all? I'm on the East Side, but I'm not a sysop. --Jangles5150 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)