HRWiki talk:Articles about HRWiki

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 00:57, 16 June 2010

[edit] About this page

I think it would be interesting to have a list of what others have to say about our wiki itself. Some of it is informative, some of it is funny, and some of it is unflattering, but it's all potentially important as praise or criticism. (And the Uncyclopedia article gets funnier every time I read it.) What do you think? — It's dot com 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As you wisely put it in the HRWiki namespace, I think it's a fine idea. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, although I see no criticism. The MeatBall one is hardly long enough for an opinion, the Wikipedia one is written from the NPOV, and the Uncyclopedia article is obviously not meant to be taken at face value. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 01:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Except the list is incomplete. And not everything at Uncyclopedia is incorrect. — It's dot com 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And the MeatBall one was written by yours truly merely to avoid the "?" link (what UseMod does instead of making them red) in the TourBusMap. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screen Savers Interview info page

Should we include the Screen Savers Interview info page? Its twenty-ish words aren't as much as the fifty-ish word spot on the Chicago Tribune bit, but it's still something. -- Tom 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to incorporate articles or interviews that briefly mention us as well. This page can and should be expanded to include those. Flashforward Interview - 10 Feb 2006 and Cold Hard Flash Interview - 1 Dec 2005 would be very nice to include as well. —BazookaJoe 06:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica

Is it okay if I added content warning this? It contains a lot of swearing, and I wouldn't click that link if you're disturbed by Homestar Runner porn, but it is an article about the Homestar Runner Wiki. I don't actually like Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I wouldn't be upset if it was too obscene. I remember that the link to that page in Article Sightings was removed. —Shwoo 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can do without adding that link to their article — the addition of the information that they have a page about us isn't worth the risk of younger users going over to it, even with the warning at the top of our page. I think it's just too obscene. Trey56 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. We are not putting that link on this page. Even if it is an article about the HRWiki, this is a family-oriented site and putting that link on this page or any other on this wiki would be just plain disrespectful. -Brightstar Shiner 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, that's exactly the kind of article whose existence I'm interested in. I've never claimed that we're perfect, but a lot of people seem to think we think we are, and it's important to know what kind of criticism (constructive or otherwise) is out there. — It's dot com 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the link is OK, as long as we have that warning on the top of the page. --Trogga 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

{with a pained look} Please, no! Even just the picture at the top of the page was enough to make my heart jump into my throat. There are people even younger than me who visit this site and if they clicked on that link, there would be some serious backlash and you know it. Feel free to read it on your own if you must (0_o), but don't post the link for all to see. No warning at the top of a page could be enough for this. -Brightstar Shiner 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Brightstar on this one. Although we are looking for alternative viewpoints, Uncyclopedia can provide a much more wholesome and humorous rebuttal to our project than Encyclopedia Dramatica can. There's a place where we draw the line here, and I feel that posting a link to that article sufficiently crosses it. — Lapper (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'd be okay with some link to swearing, and maybe even some "R" rated material, but if there's... well, you know, it starts with a "p" (Hey, I'm not sayin' it.), that's not only disturbing... that's kinda immoral. And I'm the least moral person... ever! I'm puttin' my foot down. (By the way, even though the supposed pictures aren't exactly... well, you know... it's still immoral if they're artistic renderings... of you-know-what.) In conclusion, no. Bluebry 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I lean against including it... even without the highly offensive image, there remains the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not only a vulgar site but one that constantly attempts to smear other sites. Links to ED are actually banned at Wikipedia because of this. Of course, it's the offensive image that is the main issue, anyway. Heimstern Läufer 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I still see no good reason not to link to that article other than "it's not family-oriented". --Trogga 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really one to put my foot down about material that's not "family-oriented", but these images are pretty much pornography. "Not family-oriented" is an understatement here. — Lapper (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the overwhelming opposition, I believe we should include the link with an extra warning if deemed necessary. I don't find the image to be all that offensive, although I see why others would. It presents another opinion of the HRWiki (fairly humoriously, I think) unequivalent to that on Unencyclopedia. Is it smearing the HRWiki? Yes, but this page is supposed to document all opinions of the HRWiki. —Zelinda 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also wouldn't have a problem finding (or making) in the page history a version of the page without the images (which don't relate specifically to us anyway) and linking to the permanent version, perhaps with a further warning that other versions of the page are not to be clicked on lightly. — It's dot com 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, if the "WIkipedia doesn't link to Encyclopedia Dramatica" is true, they have GOT to have a good reason to do so. I think we no link, at all. Bluebry 03:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not usually fazed by offensive images (and that drawing doesn't bother me at all), but my day would have been better had I not seen one of the other pictures on that page. And while the HRWiki section does actually have some links that make a point, I don't see the necissity of including the link. The images are definitely much worse than what we usually link to, and we don't have to include every single opinion about the wiki here. Having said that, while I tend to oppose linking that page, I'm OK with it as long as we include an extra warning directly next to it, or if we link it as Dot com suggested. Loafing 03:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Bluebry: Just so you know, I really don't understand the ArbCom decision that led to that ban, so I wouldn't necessarily cite it as a reason not to link there ever. I just brought it up to illustrate ED's reputation. Heimstern Läufer 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

An important thing to consider is that the section of the ED article in question was content warning created primarily by a sole user who was disgruntled by some things that happened in the old STUFF process. It's not a reflection of what a community or a notable person thinks. I mean, lots of sites link to us (I could provide dozens of links to blog posts), but while those posts are great and I appreciate them they aren't entirely notable, even within the context of this page. -- Tom 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(Moving the whole thing back to the left) I do not agree that ED show the opinions of a community. Like Tom just proved, it's just one disgruntled user lashing back on us. If it was a hard commentary, written in a civil way that was lashing back on us on some other site, I'd say to post that link. But since it came from the bottom of the internet's garbage can, it should stay that way and not be linked here. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

After further reflection, I agree with E.L. Cool's reasoning completely. We should not list this on the project page. — It's dot com 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing your mind, Dot Com. If someone posted that link on this page, I would never forgive them. Also, even though we're more lenient on questionable links like this than Wikipedia is, we still need to think of other people's well-being and not potentially give them nightmares from viewing that link. -Brightstar Shiner 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not put article on? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc

[edit] User jellote sucks? well, I never!

I'd like to point out that I, Jellote, am directly insulted and mocked by the Uncyclopedia article. Someone obviously trying to get Its Dot Com in trouble said I suck, and signed it as NOT user Dot Com. I have no idea what Uncyclopedia works under, but is this some form of meta-personal attack? Shall we remove it from that page?--Jellote wuz here 05:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This wiki will definitely not edit another wiki. If you feel personally attacked, then it is your personal choice how you react - as with anything outside this wiki. Apart from that I actually wouldn't take it as a personal attack. It's obviously a parody, nobody would think DC actually said that. Loafing 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] why not man?

Why not put HRWiki articles about HRWiki? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc

I'm sorry, what? Though I have mostly no idea what you are saying, are you saying that we should make an article about the Homestar Runner Wiki like Wikipedia does? StrongAwesome 01:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to mimic everything Wikipedia does. While all wikis have the same basic guidelines, after that they create the wiki as they wish. In other words, we don't need an article about the Homestar Runner Wiki. --Kingdom Stars 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus we sort of already do have an article about us. --DorianGray 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That, and Wikipedia is basically an encyclopedia but cooler- they write about nearly everything, so it would make sense for them to have an article about themselves (they're notable). This is a wiki about official Homestar Runner content, and we're technically only a fansite. PowerPie