HRWiki:Projects/Podstar Runner pages

From Homestar Runner Wiki

HRWiki:Projects (Talk) (v)
Unfinished and Ongoing
DVD commentary transcripts Image summary cleanup Toon Descriptions Possible Page Disambiguations Inside Jokes vs Running Gags Yello Dello/KOT Conventions Main page redesign @StrongBadActual Bot Interwiki-style updates Edit link issue Podstar Runner pages SBEmail Infoboxes SBEmail Production History SBCG4AP Cleanup Quote Box Templates
Completed or overruled
Navigation templates Introducing a new Interwiki link Underscores Nav Template Automation HRWiki:The Stick (Talk) HRWiki:Da Basement (Talk)

I'm similarly against Podstar Runner having been moved to Podstar Runner 2008 and the original title being disambig'd, largely because of all the disambiguation links that leaves us with, but also because I think the "Podstar Runner" title deserves more than just a disambig, having been one of the major features of H*R both times it was updated (even if I myself never made use of it, having not yet discovered H*R during Podstar's first run and having taken a break from H*R during its second run). RickTommy (edits) 13:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem I see is that, with 15-17 years between us and either iteration, the "Podstar Runner" title can refer to two podcasts that have equal relevance in the modern day. You could argue that the 2006 one is more deserving of the title due to being the podcast that started the whole thing, or the 2008 one due to being the podcast that ended it, and I don't think either of these arguments hold much more weight than the other. Perhaps the disambiguation could be transformed into an article looking at the complete history of the podcasts? Anything shared between them could be moved off their own articles and onto the new one. The disambiguation links are also a concern, which I'll ask The Cheatbot about once we reach some kind of consensus. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about this page when I posted this edit. Here is a copy of my response for context:

I think the rename was a good thing, more explicitly keeping the two pages more clearly delineated. I did update several templates to point to the new page name so I got the ball rolling that way. But I think the appropriate step would be to go through the links and figure out which way the link needs to be updated. Also notice that there are a lot of User pages that don't need updating.

There's also the option of turning this page into its own article that covers commonalities between both Podstars.

So, I would agree that perhaps converting the disambiguation into a new page with content would not be a bad idea.

Also I wanted to mention that I think this is conceptually similar to HRWiki:Projects/Possible Page Disambiguations: we have two similarly-named items that must have cleaner disambiguations. --Stux 16:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: So I started working on some links. I realized that the 2006 and 2007 H*R.com updates pages should be linking to the Podstar Runner 2006 page since the 2008 did not exist yet. However, should this tweet point to 2006 or 2008? It's referring to Podstar in general, so perhaps having an "overall" article might make more sense? --Stux 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a merge, in a manner similar to Homestar Runner 20th Anniversary Show where there are clearly-delineated subheads between the two versions (2006 and 2008, in this case) to make redirects cleaner, but since the main conceit of the two pages (downloadable toons for an iPod) are so similar it can be easier to link to a single article. Other factors —

• Neither is active: In, say, March 2008, it was valuable to delineate "the currently-updated podcast feed" and "the no-longer-updated podcast from a few years ago". But with '08 removed from the navbar ~15 yrs ago, both feel like a historical feature that can be discussed in one place.
• No overlap: No toon (afaik) was hosted on both services, so being able to just link [[Podstar Runner]] without having to double-check which version it was issued on would be more straightforward
• Very similar structures: Both articles feature the same structure, having them joined together would help in making sure they are consistently formatted and avoid any unnecessary redundancy. -- Bleu Ninja 17:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)