HRWiki talk:A History

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2005

About this page

This is a page I'd like to see, and I will be working on it from time to time. As always, anyone who is willing is more than welcome to contribute. For you Harry Potter fans out there, the title is a takeoff of Hogwarts, A History.

I would like this page to chronicle important dates of our wiki. Currently, I don't think we have a page that fits that description, but if we do, please let me know. Here are but just a few of the things that might be appropriate for this page:

• When and how the wiki originally got started, and who was involved
• When and how the original team of administrators was formed
• When and how the move to MediaWiki was accomplished, as well as subsequent upgrades
• How and why STUFF was originally created, and later how and why it was overhauled
• When and how sysops were elected or chosen
• When Willy on Wheels first struck, and how we have coped
• When NSMC first struck, and how we are coping
• First contact with TBC, and important contacts thereafter
• Important additions like the Forum, Fanstuff, and IRC channel
• Where we are now and what our current goals are
• Many other important events, anniversaries, etc.

I don't know exactly what the format should be, but I think it should be more than just a list. I'm envisioning paragraphs in something of a narrative form. We can start with a brief outline and build from there. Obviously, this will need a lot of input from those who were around in the early days. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? — It's dot com 05:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please. I would love to see this page. I've always been curious about the origins and stuff, and would very much like to help with whatever I know (however little that is). This sounds like a really neat idea. --DorianGray

This is a grand idea. Probably one of your best, Dot com. I'm sure there's alot more to add to your list there, but all in all, it sounds pretty interesting. Homestramy20|^Talk 05:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me, too. I also greatly appreciate the Harry Potter reference. I don't know if I'll be able to help much, since I'm still relatively new here, but I will certainly contribute if I think of anything. Heimstern Läufer 05:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

More praise. It's good to know your roots. And I really feel this discussion should include at least one token link to origins. There. —AbdiViklas 06:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I was actually looking for just some of this information on the old wiki a few hours ago. One question though: Do we really want to give the vandals the satisfaction of having the notoriety(sp?) and/or visibility that inclusion on this page might bring them? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but your history is your history. And those two vandals in particular have caused more headaches for us than all the rest combined. — It's dot com 06:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe instead of putting "STUFF" under "policy decisions" we could have "Important Additions" and include the creation of Feature Articles, Da Basement, The Stick, Patrol Committee, Welcoming Committee, etc. Homestar Coder 06:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, that's much better. Thanks. — It's dot com 06:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so now that all the titles are there, when is there going to be content added? I can see how people are cautious to adding what ever, since this isn't a very solid page. I thought that Dot com would of started adding things, but no one seems to be contributing. I don't know wether it's lack of knowledge of the past, or if no one is sure what to add. In conclusion; How is this going to work? Homestramy20|^Talk 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Patience, grasshopper. In fact, someone is working on a section even as I type this. Also, I need to get in touch with some users who were around in the beginning (esp. Joey and Tom) to help write those sections. — It's dot com 22:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Homestramy20|^Talk 22:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Great! I've always wondered about this! *is on a page in Goblet of Fire with Hogwarts, A History on it right now* - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Would perhaps simply "HRWiki:History" perhaps be a better title? I don't have much of a preference either way, they're both good. "HRWiki:History" just seems slightly more accurate. Either way, one of 'em 'll be a redirect. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like HRWiki:History already is a redirect, actually. --DorianGray

Yes, it is. And I chose this name specifically, TBird, to give it some character. Read the first line. — It's dot com 05:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Dorian, I musta mis-worded. I knew it was a redirect, I was suggesting that if anything, we would switch them. And if the general feeling is to keep the "A", that's fine. I read why you named it so, but I just thought I'd throw the possibility out there. If anything, I'd think a reference to H*R in the title would be more applicable, than to Harry Potter. But again, I don't want to tread on anybody's toes. Forget I said anything, I guess this name is fine. (And I could be a bit biased, since I've never read the books or seen the movies, for Harry Potter)  ;) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You should. The books are quite captivating, and the most recent movie is excellent. — It's dot com 06:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmm... I dunno, witchcraft has never really appealed to me much. I am looking forward to the next XMen movie this summer though. Now THAT'S a sweet franchise. (Hmm... perhaps we're starting to run slightly off topic...)  :) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't going to weigh in 'cause I didn't think my input would be needed, but my feeling is to keep it. Not being Potterliterate I have no vested interest in the reference, but even if it weren't one I enjoy the sound of it (you know, like "Britain: A Child's History in Verse") as well as the punning use of the namespace as, for once, a meaningful part of the construction! —AbdiViklas 06:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's starting to grow on me. I suppose "A History" makes it a little more informal, like it's from the point of view of somebody, instead of a list of dates and facts. That way it can be written more from a historian's point of view, instead of turning into an article like this or that. Now THERE'S some dry reading. Whoever wrote those articles really needs to get a personality.  :) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 07:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Focus on the story, not the descriptions

The first few sections of the page are shaping up nicely, but here are a few things to keep in mind: This page is about the story of the wiki; it's not just a list of its components. That is, we need to write about when Da Basement was created and why, not just give a description of it. When was the RC patrol formed? How has it evolved? Did you know that the IRC channel wasn't always popular, and that they attempted an AIM chatroom for a while? These are the insights I'm hoping this page will provide. The individual links to the various component pages can fill in the rest. — It's dot com 00:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. "This is a history, not a glossary!" I just didn't know how to tell people such. --DorianGray

I have an idea that might make it more historical—but instead of talking about it I'ma simply go do it. —AbdiViklas 06:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, it does need some talking. I was thinking with Da Basement, The Stick, Recent Changes Patrol, etc., that rather than simply saying "They exist", it would be nice to note when they were started. But can the first edit in the page history be taken as indicating this, or have earlier versions gotten archived somehow or something? The first one on The Stick is Joey with the comment "Creating The Stick." Did these entities ever exist, with the same function, under other names? —AbdiViklas 06:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the earliest version in the history really is the creation of the various pages. Even if they were created as something else (as Da Basement was) and later moved, the history should remain intact. — It's dot com 06:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the AIM channel even worth mentioning? As I remember, it was there for an hour, got filled with trolls, and abandoned. --JamesGecko 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's JamesGecko! One of the early early wiki users! And your first contribution in four months! ... I don't know about the AIM channel much, only that it existed. I'm still trying to piece together lots of old forum posts. Your help would be invaluable for the section on the beginnings. — It's dot com 05:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

*laughing* Yeah, it's me. Joey sent me a link. Funny, 4 months and I still feel the urge to use emoticons in talk pages... --JamesGecko 05:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Pics

what kinds of pics belong here???-- Benol, aka Coach B 13:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel this is a good place to have pictures, though that's just my opinion. That is, if you're talking about pictures of the old wiki, Fanstuff, Forum, etc. —FireBird|Talk 13:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's a pretty cool idea. We could have pics of each stage of the wiki as it progressed. That is, if we have the old edits on the archived wiki. Maybe a few mockups or something? --JamesGecko 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Capital crimes

Hi, this is mainly for dot com since he recently reverted an edit about this but the question is open to all: How do we determine if every word in a section title is capitalized or when the first word is? Examples on this page of first word onlys are

• The beginnings and early days, The start of year two, The start of year three, Recent changes patrol, and Administration and maintenance ... to name a few

while others such as

• Welcoming Committee, Early Administration, April 2005 Sysop Nominations, The Stick, and Da Basement

Have each first word capitalized. I R F 14:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops. It was late when I made the outline. Each heading should be sentence case (only the first letter capitalized) unless it's a proper noun, such as Da Basement. — It's dot com 15:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Crime Solved, but biscuit dough hands man slips through our fingers again. I R F 15:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, as a matter of principle, when talking about specific wikis, such as the Homestar Runner Wiki or the Homestar Runner Fanstuff Wiki, the word "wiki" should be capitalized because it is part of the proper noun. The word "wiki" should not, however, be capitalized in most other contexts. Here are a few example sentences for clarification:

• Joey decided to create a wiki in October 2003.
• Since its conception, the Wiki has grown to over 1,100 articles.

Hope this makes sense. — Joey (talk·edits) 00:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Various Researches

Trolls

⇔Thunderbird⇔ was one of the very first trolls of the current Wiki layout. :) -- Not Thunderbird 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Main page trolling was stopped, by protecting said page, shortly after January 14th, 2005. This was the last troll.

First Server Move

Also, ⇔Thunderbird⇔ was the last person to make a change to the Wiki before the server move of early March '05, and the first person to make a change after the server move too. (For the sake of dates, the first server move took place from slightly after 23:51, 3 March 2005; to slightly before 20:41, 6 March 2005) -- Not Thunderbird Either 01:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Links

I noticed that all the names are linked, and several and linked multiple times. shouldn't each name only be a link once? Salty^Talk! 01:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right. --Stux 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I linked names only once, and then someone came along and linked them multiple times. Now that I look at it, usernames just look better linked, no matter where they are. — It's dot com 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Old wikilink

Now that we link to the old wiki alot in this article, won't it be appropriate to create a short link to the old wiki? Something like [[Tavi:Stu|Stu's userpage]] or [[Old:Stu|same here]]. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We should never really be linking to the old Wiki outside of this historical context. The information is mostly outdated, so I rather like it being harder to link to. There's also rel="nofollow" to consider as well. -- Tom 12:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with keeping them harder to link to, but technically they aren't external links. I'd be in favor of spanning them with the plainlinks class. — Joey (talk·edits) 16:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)