HRWiki talk:A History

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 17:36, 19 May 2006 by Lapper (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

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 Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 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* - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(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)
Well, it's not actually about witchcraft in the real-world sense; it's more fantasy. The magic is just a device to give the characters superpowers, to use an term analogous to X-Men. — It's dot com 23:14, 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)
I was already planning to put up some kind of logo section where we would show the evolution of our logo. Maybe screencaps of the whole site would be better. Archive.org (which seems to be down or at least very sluggish at the moment) has a lot of old versions of the site to get us started, but going back through the edit history might yield good results too. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 20:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
What about pics for section headings, I see that there is one for the fanstuffs wiki, howabout putting the pic used for DaBasement or The Stick to name two. Or is this a can of worms from which we should not open? I R F 23:17, 1 February 2006 (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. — wikisig.gif 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? SaltyTalk! 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. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 16:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Does the evolution of the main page deserve a place on this page? How it evolved on the old Wiki, bringing the banner system to the new one, switching to the "red and blue box" format (but still keeping the same basic list of links), and finally switching to Featured article of the day format. Something along those lines? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 03:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for information

Hi, I'm posting this with regards to the following edits: apparently someone left a field open for someone to fill in (the UnknownPeriodOfTime) field. So if anyone knows the correct value, I'd be very much obliged! (As a side note, it is my recommendation that edits like that not be done. It is bad writing form and it might get missed by the editors. Better to put in in a talk page, that's what it's for.) --Stux 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. Leaving fields and comments midway though articles used to be fairly common on the old wiki before the switch. (It sort of gave a less official feel to things, made it feel like more of a community thing, imho) Guess I'm still not used to having talk pages.--JamesGecko 17:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Ohhhh! No biggie! It makes a *lot* more sense now from your explanation! Perhaps it might even be nostalgic to put that field back in there? I won't complain. Anywho. --Stux 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It might be kinda interesting to have a section in there about how the editing style has kinda changed since hrwiki started. I mean, it used to be "Look, actual content! w00t!", now it's more like, "But is that content formatted correctly in accordance with the 3th revision of the standards set at the 26 annual meeting of the wiki board of directors?" Well, you get the idea. ;-) --JamesGecko 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

I hope I'm not the only one who feels that the content of these two paragraphs sounds like a personal narration or a response to a question in an interview. In all, I'm saying that this content just feels unencyclopedic.

The wiki was growing fast, but things really took off with the addition of the forum. For maybe two weeks, there was a wiki page called "forum", or something like that. For a few days, it had two or three threads going. After it hit 7 threads on one page JamesGecko posted two or three rules about format and thread creation and broke it into several subpages, one page per thread. Within a week or so, I believe we'd hit 25 or 50 threads. About that point, Joey started working on the forum.
For a longish time, the IRC channel was very empty. Tom, Tom's bot, and one or two other admins. There were a few other folks who would drop in every now and then, but it was still fairly boring. At one point JamesGecko noticed how many people had AIM user names listed on their user page and made an entry on the "forum" page inviting people to come to the AIM chatroom "homestarrunner". Within minutes, 20 or so wikiers appeared. It lasted for an hour, until the local wiki troll appeared and annoyed everyone. (JamesGecko is unsure when the IRC channel took off. Info?)

I would personally bring them to a higher standard of quality, but I, frankly, wasn't around to witness these events happening. Thoughts? — Lapper (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To start, you could remove some of the first-person and the stuff in parentheses. I think Joey has cleanup of this article (especially the parts relating to early stuff) on his list of things to do. We should also twist Tom's arm to find out his insights. — It's dot com 16:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, great, let's teach people how to vandalise!

LOL you guys sure aren't helping WP by explaining Willie on Wheels. --NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc  04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It can't imagine it will make a lot of difference; it's not like it's hard to find out about WoW. Heimstern Läufer 04:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll also say that pointing it out like this will only increase the likelihood... "To forbid a body to do something is the surest way in the world to have that body go and do that very thing." Mark Twain --DorianGray
How are we not helping Wikipedia by explaining Willy on Wheels? —BazookaJoe 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing dates

I've commented out the sections that still have missing dates. The sections should not be displayed until all the missing information is filled. I filled in two dates, and used the following pages are reference:

I think the guestbook talk page mentions who had the first guestbook somewhere, but apparently we had two different "guestbook periods". --Stux 05:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In-Famous

This is just a suggestion, but do you think we should put Yeltensic in the "Infamous Vandals" section? I know the answer is most likely no, but he has created a ton of sockpuppets, and caused new user registration to go down for a short while. The only other guys to do that were WoW and NSMC. Any thoughts? Comments? Rotten fruit that you want to throw at me? — Has Matt? (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he need to be added. He had no long lasting impcat on the wiki like the others. Everyone make sockpuppets and create confusion on the wiki. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 12:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is a sockpuppet? (as is pertains to the wiki) I R F 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Multiple user accounts. See internet sock puppet. --videlectrix.pngENUSY discussionitem_icon.gif user.gifmail_icon.gif 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried doing it before, but it was erased. I think it would probably get him started all over again about how the admins are being mean to him. Seriously (Talk) 15:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, he isn't an infamous vandal. To me, I consider him to be but a minor annoyance. And Seriously, the admins are not being mean to him. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I know. I meant that he would once again get worked up about thinking the admins are being mean to him. Seriously (Talk) 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen mentions of Yeltensic in several places, what's the deal with him? I mean I've seen info on Willy and NMSC, I was just wondering if someone could fill me in..just curious about the history of the wiki With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeltensic got to into the "Save the guestbooks" craze of the time and vandalized pages saying thinga about guestbooks. I wish Yeltensic would come back, though. But only if Yelt didn't do the guestbook stuff. Bluebry 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So you mean, he did other stuff too...like good edits? Weird....With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 04:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I remember. Yelt was asked to save the guestbooks. He was a good user. Then, he got too into it. I remember. Bluebry 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No, he had no good edits (in fact, he had zero main namespace and article talk edits), and was never a good user. He only had one item on his agenda, and when he didn't get his way, he became destuctively hostile. In addition, he admitted elsewhere that he'd never even been to H*R.com. — It's dot com 04:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Crud. I forgot to mention I have a bad memory. Well, I DO remember he was asked to Save the Guestbooks. Then, he got into it too much. The end. How do I sign... Oh YEah! Bluebry 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so, after looking at his contributions, Dot com is right. Bluebry 04:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You sound surprised... ;) — It's dot com
What?! No,uh SAVE THE GUESTBOOKS!! No, I'm just kidding. I have no response to that. Bluebry 04:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw his Wikipedia userpage (linked from his page here) and it says he's a fan of Homestar Runner, but it says he didn't start watching until after he came here...why would he join the wiki before ever watching the cartoon? Did he want to find out if he likes the fans before watching it?? With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably like a first taste. Bluebry 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if he came here intending to be a vandal..I saw he was here for two weeks before trolling...kinda odd I thought. With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that's a pretty confusing conversation for people who've stumbled upon it now... With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because your (Granola) deception isn't clear since the reader has no idea that the user known as Granola was Yeltensic. For those just reading this for the first time: Granola was Yeltensic, but pretended not to be him since Yeltensic is blocked form editing. After a while, Granola admitted that he was Yeltensic for some reason. -- Tom 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what I meant was that after that conversation was over, I had changed my sig to say,"I'm Yelt" in parentheses (and of course it changed all of my previous sigs); as a result, at that time it would have looked weird cos someone whose sig said,"I'm Yelt" was referring to Yelt in the third person. But later, Dot com made me change it back, so it doesn't say "I'm Yelt" anymore. With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Infamous Vandals?

Why on earth are you recognizing these vandals with their own separate section? This is exactly what they want. I would recommend that someone remove this section completely. Thoughts??? --Duke33 18:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Bluebry 18:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Those two vandals (and only those two) have directly influenced HRWiki procedures, especially NSMC. It is an important part of our history. — It's dot com 18:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but the sysops surely wouldn't do tis unless they know we are safe from these vandals. As you can see, we are. Seriously (Talk) 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

April Fools

The April 1st joke should be mentioned somewhere here. It was a major even in the wiki history. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It was a good one, you gotta admit. Bluebry 13:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In what time zone was the wiki corrected at 12:00? It's not UTC. Bluebry 14:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Both times it was switched at 12:00 Eastern Time, AKA Georgia time, AKA The Brothers Chaps time. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 14:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://hrwiki.org/wiki/HRWiki_talk:A_History"
Personal tools