HRWiki talk:Old STUFF

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 17:50, 11 January 2005 by MadEwokHerd (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search


Rant and Roar

We need to move the "Fun Facts" debate/discussion/voting to the Talk pages of the specific articles. I now realize that this "Stuff" HRWIKI about page pure silliness.

By moving content discussion from the talk page to a common page we are simply no using the Wiki to its potential. If one gets a lack of response from a talk page, go ahead and make the change. BE BOLD.

-That is what the Talk page is for-

It has been said that many contributors will not check the talk page before making a change. Most everyone on the "Stuff" page are old hands. If newbies won't read the how-to why would they go to the "Stuff" page?

The popularity of the "Stuff" page is typical of a sloppy discussion forum and not an article based reference guide.

I think this will be an ongoing problem with this wiki because since the HR universe is finite, most of its content has already been catalogued. Still, many people want to contribute so we are left with an onslaught of "fun facts" and pointless articles on SB's Stool.

What we need is a Clean-Up page. Articles that need to be cleaned up for one reason or another are listed on the Clean-Up Page. This would include merge and redirects, and it could be used to flag pages with "fun fact" debates.

I think due to the nature of the "virus" email it will be a high water mark in the "did you notice that" department.

My 2 cents - [[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] 21:17, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

Yes, that's what the talk page is for, but talk pages aren't organized. Sometimes when a problem gets big enough, a jury-rigged solution becomes less adequate. It's been pointed out that the STUFF page results in much more (and more precise) feedback than the use of talk pages does. In addition, for the first time we're all getting together and working out what makes a good fun fact. These things don't sound like "pure silliness" to me. The same argument can be made with Wikipedia and VfD: talk of deletion could just take place on the Talk page, but if they did it that way, it'd be spread too thin and much less would actually get done. Of course, a counterargument is that Wikipedia is much larger-scale, but I think the argument still applies since this is obviously doing good. As I've noted, by the way, people who wish to be bold can still just post their facts directly; there's just less of a chance that it'll be accepted. By the way, we could still use a clean-up page, but I think it needs to be separated from STUFF because of the potentially high volume. Time will tell... - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 01:02, 23 Nov 2004 (MST)
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but perhaps we should have individual STUFF fun facts on the talk pages of their respective pages under a subsection of their talk pages, and have links to talk pages that have STUFF'd items on this page. --Nerdular Nerdence 01:12, 27 Nov 2004 (MST)
Counterargument: having everything on one STUFF page still makes it easier to maintain. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 04:02, 27 Nov 2004 (MST)
I find it hard to call a 44Kb long page full of decline/delete/accept/keep that no one wants to read through easy to maintain. That's why I recommend this page be used to link to discussion pages for the toons. As long as people actually use it, then this page will link to pages that list fun facts under consideration. If you hadn't noticed, clicking edit on the STUFF page leads to some warning akin to this: "WARNING: Most browsers will barf on this page. It is too long." It really is too long, and will likely only get messier as time goes on. --Nerdular Nerdence 11:14, 27 Nov 2004 (MST)
Have you by any chance seen how long Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is? ;) Yes, I've noticed the warning but I don't consider it important, and it's not true that "most browsers" will barf on the page (especially not the important ones like MSIE, Netscape, and Firefox), just that some browsers will. I don't think it's too long. The important stuff is the votes themselves and there are fewer than one per line on average, and they are in bold, so it is very easy to glance at a fun fact and see how things are going for it. If a few days have passed and there's hardly anything but decline/decline/decline, then it's probably safe to just get rid of it. Speaking of, I decided that fun facts that do get rejected, along with their votes, should probably be moved to the according Talk page. There are a few fun facts with enough declines and enough time to have been voted on to know to get rid of them, so I will. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 04:00, 28 Nov 2004 (MST)
Adding the template {{disputed}} to any article under the "Fun Facts" banner will have the same affect as this unwieldy "Stuff" page. Vfd on Wikipedia is grouped together because only admins can delete and they need to track the results of polls. Admins are not here to "approve" every fun fact: they are here to administrate. The community decides content, and as the style and How-to guide explains, that is what the talk page is for. - Dr Haggis - Talk 21:20, 28 Nov 2004 (MST)
I agree with Dr Haggis on this one. Perhaps this should be a Wiki-decision poll on the Forum? This page is great (I especially love the S.T.U.F.F. acronym) but I really think using a boilerplate that alerts people to the dispute and points them to the talk page would be the most effective solution. JoeyDay (Talk) 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (MST)

General Comments and Rants

  • I'm glad that we are finally addressing the crap fun fact issue. Whenever one sees the text "this may be a reference to...." it should just be cut. Not even voted on. If we don’t know, its not a fact. Speculate elsewhere.
And we shouldn’t confuse running gags with references. When The Cheat's head blows up, or there is a new game title in the Floppy Disk Container, those are running gags. When Strong Bad overtly mentions the email tape-leg, that’s a reference. When something appears in the background from another toon or email, that is not a "reference". Nor is the reusing of sound effects a "reference". -Drhaggis 16:02, 21 Nov 2004 (MST)
I agree. A true classification system such as the one you present needs to be drawn up. This would help with the problem of internal Homestar Runner references. Do you think something similar would also aide us with external references to real-life things as well? -- Tom 16:30, 21 Nov 2004 (MST)

I totally agree. The reason they use the same backgrounds/items/sounds is because it's easier than making a new one. And also,something should only be considered a pop culture reference if it's an exact quote or almost an exact quote. Isn't it possible that it's just a coincidence they're similar?-Miss Free Country USA

  • When does a funfact become accepted or declined? After x votes? After x voting days? This is a great start, but it lacks structure. I think we have two days of voting. Comments/Suggestions/Did I not read something?-Fuzzy
    • Well, the idea was that the admins decide when something has had enough votes or been up long enough, though it doesn't have to be that way. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 21:19, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)
      • Well, what's the point of voting if the admins decide whether or not the fun fact has had enough votes. They could then say that their one vote is enough to veto 50 other peoples. There needs to be a set procedure, otherwise this whole voting thing is pointless. -Fuzzy
    • Not necessarily. I think the admins can be trusted to use good judgement in deciding whether or not to accept or decline an item. If it turns out that most people don't agree, then we can change that. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 00:56, 23 Nov 2004 (MST)

This comment could be a little bit out of place, but what about just creating a new "Running Gags" heading in emails? So, when The Cheat's head blows up or a new floppy disk appears, rather than it being listed in "Fun Facts," it would be listed in "Running Gags." --oddtodd 00:29, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)

Starting to get on the wrong foot here...

First off, I'd like to revise the terms used for voting. Rather than "delete/keep", we should use "decline/accept" because we should mostly be voting on new fun facts, which brings me to my next point: already somebody has posted an item for little animal, which is an old e-mail with very few fun facts. I think it'd be preferable to move the disputed item to the Talk page in that case. We don't want to get more bureaucratic than necessary, that is, this page is meant to be here for pages that need it.

Of course, we don't have to do things my way. I'm just communicating my original intent. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 07:22, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

It seems to me that even pages like "virus" could have the fun fact voting on its talk page. -Drhaggis 12:18, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)
I disagree, if disputed fun facts are just put on the Talk page, someone will just put it back with the facts, and then someone else will put it back in Talk, and it will just go back and forth. Unless you mean to set up a voting system in the Talk page. That would be alright, but I think that Select The Usable Fun Facts is better because users will know where to go about disputed fun facts, and if they were just on Talk, they might get overlooked. STUFF seems to be the better system. --Ogog 3:00, 22 Nov. 2004 (GMT)
I agree with Ogog. This has happened to me a few times. You take an irrelevant fun fact off and then 5 minutes later it is back. I have also tried posting to the talk page to try to clear up some irrelevant fun facts, but never got a response (see Talk:Halloween Fairstival). -Fuzzy
The talk page is intended to discuss the merits of article content. I would think a discussion is more likely to be overlooked here, outside article space, than with the article itself. -[[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] 13:07, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)
On the other hand, I believe this is already shown to be wrong because here there is both more breadth and more depth in fun fact discussions than there has ever been. (Discussions over "Yeah, no" don't count.) Clearly stuff's not getting overlooked. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 01:07, 23 Nov 2004 (MST)
I agree that, for the most part, most old articles don't need it. However, with certain disputed facts like the little animal one, it may be necessary, as that fact has been argued up and down for so long that we need SOME sort of consensus on it. --TheNintenGenius 13:53, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

People that will ignore the voting on the Talk page will also ignore the voting on the STUFF page. If they won't read talk page why would they come here? Wikipedia has a 3 revert rule. If edits are going back and forth both parties risk being banned or frozen. - [[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] 16:28, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

I think we should give this a chance. Like I said, NOBODY responded when I posted on the talk page of Halloween Fairstival. I posted on STUFF earlier today and have already had tremendous feedback. Which is strange, because you said that if people wouldn't go to the talk page, they wouldn't come here (yet you yourself have done just that). And, like you said, Wikipedia has a three revert rule. With STUFF, both parties don't have to be banned or frozen, only the party not following the vote. I don't think we should abandon this system after one day. Let's test it and see if it will work. -Fuzzy
I second Fuzzy. STUFF's voting system seems more objective than the flame-wars that can sometimes break out on Talk pages, and a lot of it has to do with the idea of having a predetermined set of votes. However, I am concerned that this page is getting really quite long already, and it's just two emails old. I have already nominated a fun fact that already had been nominated. --oddtodd 00:25, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)

New Vote Type?

I've noticed a lot of Fun Facts that need to be moved to a different page, specifically about new features of the Lappy 486 mentioned in the animal email. So, I suggest that there be a new vote type: Move. Certain fun facts aren't about the emails themselves, but are sort of a "big picture" type of fact. Any thoughts? --oddtodd 00:19, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)

I'm not sure I can speak for everyone, but I like the idea. --Jay 00:32, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)
I second that. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 15:50, 2 Dec 2004 (MST)

Time Limit?

There are a lot of fun facts which have been open to voting for over a month, and still haven't been resolved. While most of this page is very well organised, the final verdicts are not. I recommend a time limit for voting of a week or two after the fun fact was put up for debate. That way, we can keep the page from getting too cluttered and finally kill off some of the decaying polls put up months ago. --Upsilon

  • It's been a while since the Christmas Lights fun fact went up, and the votes seem about 50-50 in favor of the rewrite (if you count the people who voted for the original wording). So what does this mean? Mister Mister 09:36, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
I still think we need a time limit. Perhaps a week after the fun fact was put up, perhaps a few days after people stopped voting. We can't always count on people agreeing eventually, and if a consensus isn't reached within a reasonable amount of time, the majority should decide. --Upsilon
  • I agree, there's actually a few facts of mine that have been on the page since it first appeared and I'm curious to know if they've been declined or accepted. -- Rebochan 19:33, 27 Dec 2004 (MST)

Forward Referencing

I'm going through the Strong Bad Emails one by one, checking over them all. I'm finding lots and lots of "forward references" - which is to say, references to things that haven't happened yet. For example, stating in invisibility that "The Tandy line "I can make it on my own" is later used as a line for Li'l Brudder in crying" (which I deleted) is a forward reference. I do not like forward references - for instance, it would be far more appropriate to place that Fun Fact in crying rather than invisibility. Is it just me? Am I being too picky? Or should I add "forward referencing" to "examples of bad 'fun facts'"? (By the way, saying, "this is the first time xxx has happened" doesn't really constitute forward referencing in my eyes if xxx is relatively common later on, like Strong Bad's pronounciation of state abbreviations in depressio.) --Jay 16:52, 16 Dec 2004 (MST)

I don't have a problem with forward referencing (unless it gets as ridiculous and useless as other "Fun Facts" of late). Since the Wiki is the ultimate resource for all things Homestar Runner, some people come to the site specifically to find where certain quotes are reused. Say someone has just watched invisibility, seen the "I can make it on my own," and they know it turns up again somewhere but for whatever reason their blanking on it. With forward referencing, they can find it easily, but without, it's probably going to drive them crazy as they search all the other e-mails one by one. -- FortyTwo
Or they COULD just use the "search" feature... --Jay 17:04, 16 Dec 2004 (MST)
It's real easy to search.
Forward referencing is bogus: Is the 5,000 year old soy food we call "tofu" a reference to The Luau? --beanluc
No, but I would expect to see John Quincy Adams mentioned on a page about John Adams. Earlier emails tend to be less cluttered with fun facts anyway. It seems wrong not to mention flashback on some kinda robot's page. Mister Mister 09:46, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
That's a historical fact, not trivia about a cartoon series. And the biggest difference is, John Adams did not suddenly cease to be the moment that JQA was born. And, to me, it seems wrong TO mention flashback on some kinda robot. --Jay 11:56, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
I'm really not sure what you mean here by "John Adams did not suddenly cease to be", can you please clarify? Mister Mister 04:31, 24 Dec 2004 (MST)
Somewhat poor wording on my part, but I stand by the sentiment. I mean that Adams, Sr. did not die before Adams, Jr. was born. It would be difficult to tell the life story of Adams, Sr. without at least mentioning Adams, Jr., because the two's timelines overlapped. But if someone was writing a biography on George Washington, would they say "George Washington was the great-great-great grandfather of Terrance Washington"? (I made that name up, but you get the point.) Even if Terrance Washington was actually a famous person? No. You could very easily tell the whole story without ever mentioning Terrence. Maybe you could put this information in Terrance's biography, but it would have no place in George's. --Jay 21:25, 28 Dec 2004 (MST)
To be frank, my big problem with forward referencing is that it violates the Once And Only Once rule. Care to disagree with me on this one? --Jay 16:24, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
I think Once and Only Once is often overapplied, but that's a different discussion. The kind of references we are talking about here are little more than a link and some explanation of why that page relates to this one. I think something on guitar along the lines of "A line very similar to the last line of this song appeared in dragon" is informative and reasonable. Mister Mister 04:28, 24 Dec 2004 (MST)
But what does it have to do with guitar??? --Jay 17:56, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
My goodness. There's a forward reference epidemic these days. It really bothers me, people. Does anyone at all besides beanluc agree with me? --Jay 17:56, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
I know I don't. I find it can be nice to mention how they took aspects from one e-mail and then expanded upon them, for those not in the know. There's not really any NEED to purge the Wiki of links to e-mails that happened later, that kind of goes against the readability aspect of it all. --Shadow Hog 18:21, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
It clutters the pages rather than adding to the readability. I mean, what should we do to japanese cartoon, state that "Stinkoman appears again in (this) and (that) and (this other thing) and (something else) and..." It's easier to only refer backwards, so you only have to mention it once (per page)! And I ask again: what is wrong with the Search feature?! --Jay 18:25, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
More effort. It's easier to scroll down, see that this idea was expanded upon, think "hmm, I want to know more about this" and click a relevant link than it is to come upon the thought on your own, think "hmm, I want to know more about this" and then do a search for the term and spend time searching through numerous pages to find what it is you're looking for, or to hit Back, look throughout the list of e-mails for the e-mail you think has the pertainent information and look through that. Yes, I'm lazy, I know, I don't care. I know some people out there will be just the same.
That said, it's not that it shouldn't be done period, it's about what the content is. Posting links to everything Stinkoman's been in is better left to Category:Stinkoman Filmography (to borrow from your own example), while mentioning that the VCR blinking 12:00 in stand-up was expanded upon in 12:00 is quite acceptable, IMO. That said, linking should probably be limited to one or two forward references to a specific detail at a time; any more, and it might as well have its own page and that should be linked to instead. --Shadow Hog 19:58, 4 Jan 2005 (MST)

Who decides?

Awhile back I saw the STUFF page was quickly bloating, so I moved some of the unanimous declined facts to their appropriate Talk page. In the end, who has the authority to approve or decline a fact after X amount of time? I got back from vacation and again the STUFF page is heavily saturated, mostly with "un-fun" or "non-fact" funfacts that should have been deleted immediately instead of simply STUFFed.

In the end, who makes the decision? Kamek 21:54, 28 Dec 2004 (MST)

Exactly what I've been wondering, hence my proposal that the majority decide after a certain amount of time. --Upsilon

I've decided to be bold and archive anything started in November from which a clear outcome could be gathered (all permutations of "accept" combined are not a majority or one permutation has more votes than all others combined). I've moved them to the archive page because that was the first choice shown, and I've put comments on anything I didn't move that was started in November. I also checked/updated the wiki pages for consistency with the result.

I'm proposing that we base the question of whether the fun fact can be added or removed without concluding the voting on the number of votes in favor of a particular outcome, and that we archive en masse for a particular time period (say, every week or so, we archive everything older than 2 or 3 weeks). It's too difficult to determine when a particular fun fact was added to base decisions of what to do about it on that (unless we use the "history" page to look for things added in a certain date range). --MadEwokHerd 18:50, 30 Dec 2004 (MST)

  • sighs* The discussion above says two weeks. I'm going to wait a few days and then, if I don't get any major objections (barring comments about where the archived fun facts should go), I'm going to start checking for facts that were added over 2 weeks ago and archive/comment those. I've just realized that you could simply check the difference between a page from 2 weeks ago and a current page, and compare THAT with a current version. --MadEwokHerd 21:29, 30 Dec 2004 (MST)

Did our voting system explode?

In the fun fact Quadratic formula, there are 7 votes to accept, 8 to decline, and 2 to modify and accept. This means that there is a majority for keeping it in some form, but the majority cannot agree on WHAT form. Do we use the simple majority system (decline DID get the most votes)? Do we require an actual majority (more than half for any particular side or the fun fact is rejected)? My preferred system is that we start by regarding "modify and accept" as "decline", and see if we can accept it as is. Then we add each particular "modify" suggestion to the "accept" column in order from most to least popular (simultaneously if they have the same number of votes) until we run out and decline the thing or have enough votes to accept with modifications. --MadEwokHerd 16:34, 30 Dec 2004 (MST)


Tch. I leave the Wiki for a couple of weeks and when I come back, all the Fun Facts at the top of the page look like this:

Fun Fact Name

Fun facts in STUFF look like this:

Fun Fact Name

The fun fact.

Perhaps we should put something about STUFF on Standards? --Upsilon

Wow, jeez

I stop paying attention to the wiki for a while and STUFF degenerates into madness. I'm starting to have severe second thoughts about this whole STUFF thing, since the point of STUFF wasn't to have every single fun fact ever created put up on the page, especially in clumps of two or three. Aiiiggh. --TheNintenGenius 10:49, 10 Jan 2005 (MST)

Yeah, I kinda thought people were always a bit too anal about what goes and doesn't go in the Fun Facts section. I mean, there are some really bad ones (I mean really bad), but then, there are several ones that kind of have merit but get turned down pretty quickly. I don't really get why, outside of the "it causes clutter" argument... --Shadow Hog 17:08, 10 Jan 2005 (MST)

Could we, maybe, organize by date and archive on the talk pages?

I just read the above discussion, but I wasn't sure if this is really a response to it or not so I've just made this a new section.

Ok, I like the STUFF page and would hate to see it go, mainly because I would have to watch the entire wiki to participate in the discussion that goes on there (aside from fixing random errors . Apparently it's getting to big and difficult to manage. I've noticed that entries added to the bottom of the page have gotten little attention. Someone (I think it was Upsilon, but I don't have the discussion page open anymore) suggested a time limit. I've been attempting to enforce that, but it's big and difficult to manage anyway (there's also a lot of stuff there that I can't resolve). I don't think anyone really wants to have to look in the page history to figure out what's old enough to archive (or what's been added recently). So I think new entries should be added to the top of the page, ala Wikipedia:WP:Vfd (but without the subpage, that's annoying). Of course, this would also mean no links to specific toon sections..because there wouldn't be any.. So we'd archive on talk pages once things are resolved (which doesn't necessairily always correspond to a time limit, though I still think it would be helpful to have one at least as a guideline..or as the normal rule..).

If actually figuring out when the entries were added is a problem, I could certainly take a specific revision of the real STUFF page, dive into the history, and rearrainge everything into a subpage on my User space or something.. In fact, maybe I'll do that anyway..if I get flamed or something.. --MadEwokHerd 10:50, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)

Personal tools