HRWiki talk:Standards

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 23:42, 10 October 2007

1 REALLY External Links?
2 Bold Punctuation?
3 Cast (in order of appearance) vs Featuring/Features
4 SB email reference.
5 Since when do we not transcribe easter eggs?
6 Format for Lyrics
7 Forward references
8 Category pages
9 Character pictures
10 Easter Egg Transcribing Part 2
11 Thumbnails vs full-size images?
12 Places
13 Wikilinks in transcript dialogue
14 Splitting Fun Facts
- 14.1 Real-World References?
- 14.2 Running Gags Section
15 Err... Why was my edit reverted?
16 Duration vs. Running Time
17 Template to simplify Cast & Filmography
18 Similar template for Computer in SBEmails
19 Image Standards
20 Easter Eggs
21 More general "out of the frame" rule proposal
22 Standardize "The Cheat Noises"
23 Ignored Rule
24 Sig standards
- 24.1 Image
- 24.2 Remove sup/sub
- 24.3 Colors
- 24.4 Length restrictions
- 24.5 Make it official?
- 24.6 Signatures (Final Version)
25 Transcript Question
26 Make decisions on the wiki
27 Guestbooks
28 deletion policy?
29 Cheat Noises
30 Debuts
31 Other standards
32 When TBC fix things
33 Notable Flash artifacts
34 "Waiting eggs" Redux
35 Email classes
36 Camera moves in transcripts
37 Cast list formatting
38 Split the Standards
39 Choice of screenshot
40 What exactly is considered canon in the HR universe?
41 Suggestion for transcripts
42 Standards for Real-World References
43 Linking titles of toons only once
44 Gags section
45 Filmography Pages
46 Cast list formatting 2

REALLY External Links?

I can't find anything about this in the user guide.. but you know in the external links section of writeups, and in other places, how it puts that icon after the link (a blue box with an arow coming out)? To me, that essentially says "The link will open up in a new window" as well as "The link goes offsite". I've seen many websites (including every website I've built.. lightsecond.com, bend.com) that have the convention that if the link goes offsite, it should do so in a new window. Can/should we do the same here?
MetaStar 20:47, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

I'm voting against it. Opening a link in a new window is almost pretentious, as if the site you are on should have the power to not let you leave. Modern browsers like Firefox will let you open a link in a new tab when you want to go elsewhere by middle-clicking your mouse, and users are used to doing that when they want to stay on the current site. Furthermore, Firefox by default doesn't open new window links in new tabs, which annoys me to no end. I would say that an offsite link should behave like a normal link, so as not to confuse the user, and that opening a link in a new window should be a perogative of a web application that has a good reason for not taking you offsite. An example of this would be Hotmail, which opens links in a new window to keep you logged in unless you explicity log out. Most users of this site won't be logged in, and they'll be expecting the wiki to behave like like a normal website. So I saw leave it the way it is, and let the user control where his links pop up. If the icon is confusing, change the icon. Render

What about if it's a logged-in-user user preference? And of course this all pre-supposes that such fancies are possible in MediaWiki, which I dunno :) Anyway I have yet to understand tabs since they always open underneath the current page.. they make me think of icky popunders. (Do you know of any good tabbed-browsing-for-dummies like faq on the 'net? I'd read that ;)
MetaStar 22:21, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

User-configurable preferences are always good. Any admins know if this is possible in MediaWiki without a major overhaul? (As for tabs, I suppose it's just one of those things that just sort of grows on you. I like the pop-under effect because it lets me open interesting links for deferred viewing while I continue reading the page I'm on.) Render

Bold Punctuation?

I like how this is coming along, Jones. One question, though: haven't we always placed the colon outside the bold tags, as in "THE CHEAT:"? I guess I don't mind it either way, as long as we are adhering to a standard, but are there rules to this sort of thing? I remember being taught in school that punctuation should never be bold. — Joey (talk·edits) 09:43, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

Er, I thought we did it the other way around. And since the colon is part of the character "declaration" (rather than part of the dialogue), it seems more natural to have it bold as well. -- InterruptorJones 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

Okay, I've been looking around the web (but Tom is better at Googling than I am) and I can't find anything about whether or not punctuation should be bold. I think it looks more consistent to have the colon in bold. I just wanted to be sure that was the right thing. Carry on. —

Joey (talk·edits) 10:26, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

I've always bolded the colon. ~Hobo

Think about it the inverse way. What if you were being asked to bold the dialog instead of the character name? Would you then bold the colon as well? The colon would still have a space before the dialog started so that would look pretty silly: "THE CHEAT: Meh!". so I think you should do with the colon what you do with the character name, not what you do with the dialog. :)

MetaStar 20:19, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

Cast (in order of appearance) vs Featuring/Features

I was thinking, for pages for things like early Strong Bad Emails and anything else where only one character appears, it seems kind of redundant to add the "in order of appearance" part since only one character appears. For SBemail#1, I just put "Cast" but even this seems a bit improper as a cast is generally referring to "The actors in a play, movie, or other theatrical presentation," not just one actor. I thought "Featuring" or something like that would be more appropriate... I feel like I'm rambling. ~Hobo

I guess I don't have an opinion on this one. Certainly "(in order of appearance) is superflouous for one-character toons, but beyond that I don't much care. Anybody else? -- InterruptorJones 11:41, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

To me, "Featuring" would make the most sense for one-character toons ~Hobo

Yeah, for a one character toon I like the word "Featuring". —

Joey (talk·edits) 12:55, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

But what about the meaning of the word "featuring"? Didn't cheatday feature The Cheat? I'd think using that word for some emails and "cast" for others would be misleading. Or at the very least, confusing. I'm thinking that leaving off the "in order of appearance" for toons with only one character would work well enough. -- Tom 14:24, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

I'm with Tom on this. Brevity good, "featuring" bad ;) I know on albums and song titles they say "song, by Rapper, feat. other guys".. but it isn't feat. Rapper. I'm also selfishly hoping the word "featuring" can be ostricised for long enough to easily convert things.

A quick look at a thesaurus suggests to me we could say "Starring: Strong Bad" but I'd also listen to other bright idears

MetaStar 20:28, 25 Sep 2004 (MST)

SB email reference.

I have been using the following styles when referencing a Strong Bad Email depending on the context.

in the email "[[the facts]]"

 in the Strong Bad Email: [[the facts]]

==Complete Filmography==
* Email: [[duck pond]]

My goal is to make it clear that we are refering to the title of something. Otherwise one could get a sentance like,

Pom Pom kicked Strong Bad in the head in Pom Pom.

Not clear at all. Should this reference be standardized? -Drhaggis 11:47, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

It wouldn't hurt to standardize it since I see all sorts of different usages all over. However, I tend to put the quotation marks inside the link like this: [[the facts|"the facts"]], which yields "the facts". Looks better to me, but I'd like to hear others' opinions. -- InterruptorJones 11:54, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

I don't think having the leading "Strong Bad Email" is needed. But that's me. What about readers who don't know the emails? But then, if we started putting "in the email, sibbie", would we also need to start using that for toons and shorts as well, as in "in the toon, Where's The Cheat?" and "in the short Experimental Film"? Hmm. I'd also like to hear some other' input.

Though I do like having the Filmography listings standardized. Very good. -- Tom 12:34, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

I will third the opinion that quotes should be around the title of a toon or email when it is being used in a sentence (as opposed to a bulleted list of related items such as that found on the SBEmail page). I'm not sure which I like better. Putting them outside the link would be easier on my poor typing finders, but putting them inside the link does look nicer. Just my two cents for what it's worth. Should we start a decision poll on the Forum? Not sure we need the leading "in the email, 'whatever'". I think we can just say, "in 'the facts'." As long as it's in quotes you know it's a toon or an email as opposed to it being a character as in Drhaggis' example. —

Joey (talk·edits) 12:41, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

For me, having the quotes in the brackets is unnecessary piping. We should also be adding quotes around unlinked toon titles. -Drhaggis 15:02, 21 Sep 2004 (MST)

Since when do we not transcribe easter eggs?

I personally think easter eggs should be transcribed. We can't hardly bill ourselves as a definitive knowledge-base of all things Homestar if we don't have transcripts of the easter eggs. Yes, it would ruin the surprise, but so does everything else on our site! The whole reason for a transcript is for people to understand what the characters are saying. If I can't make out what Strong Sad is saying in some-such easter egg, I'd like to be able to find it on the site and read what other people think/know he's saying. — Joey (talk·edits) 13:37, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)

Okay, fair enough. So we need a standard for transcribing them. Any ideas? -- InterruptorJones 13:50, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)

I liked having the short transcript under the bulleted item, but that does get bulky. Let me play around with some ideas and get back to you. —

Joey (talk·edits) 14:24, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)

I took this claim against transcription of EE, was for cases when the egg would be detailed on another page. Such as in the case of a game, or the introduction of another characeter. -Drhaggis 19:02, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)

I thought we always did transcribe them. And the unwritten rule has always been this: If the egg is "clickable", that is, the user has to do something to cause the egg, it goes in the "Easter Egg" section. If the egg does not require any action on the part of the user, besides them just sitting in front of their computer a little longer, it goes in the Transcript. I'm pretty sure that's what everybody does anyway, but I just want to make it clear. -- Tom 19:08, 22 Sep 2004 (MST)

What about creating subheadings (i.e. ===cheatsa===) before each easter egg transcript in the Easter Eggs section? That would make things clearer. (I'm thinking something like:)

===Homestar===
'''Click on the word "Homestar" to see Homestar crying.'''

''{Homestar is still bawling.}''

'''HOMESTAR''': Ohh, Tenderfoot! Can you tell me what to do
with myself? I feel like I'm at a crossroads, and there's like,
a Denny's on one corner, and an IHOP on the other!

''{Homestar is kneeling over the Tenderfoot drawing.}''

'''HOMESTAR''': Can you give me some sound financial advice?

''{Homestar is laying on the ground again.}''

'''HOMESTAR''': Tenderfoot, can you help advise me on my future?

Anybody with me? --oddtodd 11:17, 20 Nov 2004 (MST)

Format for Lyrics

Song lyrics are inconsistently styled throughout the site. I propose that we embed lyrics in <pre> tags, so that they show up inside of a box the same way that the transcribed text of the Strong Bad emails do. Thoughts? Render

Seconded. --Upsilon

Seconded. -flatluigi

Forward references

dragon has a link to guitar. Should guitar have a link to dragon?

Chronology on the official site shouldn't affect what can link to what in the wiki. If a link to a future email is interesting and relevant, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Render

Category pages

Currently Category pages, such as Category:Strong Bad Email or Category:1936 only contain text such as "These articles are all Strong Bad Emails.", and all the substance on that topic is contained in a separate page. Would it make more sense to move all of the substance to the Category page, and turn the actual Strong Bad Email or 1936 page into a mere redirect to the Category? Once and Only Once etc, since it would also provide the listing of everything in the Category underneath. -- thejesterx 21:47, 6 Oct 2004 (MST)

No, I don't think so. The Strong Bad Email page has a lot of information that wouldn't fit in the category page, and it's a lot easier to link to a regular page ([[Strong Bad Email]] vs. [[:Category:Strong Bad Email|Strong Bad Email]]) than a category. Categories should just be categories, not articles. ~~~

Character pictures

Now we use thumbnails for toon screenshots - should we do the same for character images? I assume we should, but I thought I'd better verify since it's not made clear anywhere. --Upsilon

EDIT: According to the projects page (drawn to my attention by spblat), "we need to comb the entire wiki changing full-sized images to thumbnails". This pretty much answers my question. --Upsilon

I guess it's my turn to have some fun. I've noticed that a lot of the filmography category styles are different. I'm going to go around changing them so they're a bolded debut and any complete list says "complete filmography". Otherwise, it will just say filmography. Is this ok? SparkPlug 04:21, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Easter Egg Transcribing Part 2

OK, since I've heard conflicting ideas on the wiki on whether or not Easter Eggs should be transcribed or not, can we finally get some sort of official, definitive yes/no on this? There's both the discussion on this page, the actual Standards page itself, and the discussion page for extra plug to take into consideration as to my confusion concerning it. I'm asking about this since, while I took the conversation on this page and in extra plug to mean Easter Eggs are expected to be transcribed now, some Easter Egg transcriptions are now being removed (see, for example, Where the Crap Are We?.) --TheNintenGenius 12:00, 18 Oct 2004 (MST)

This site aims to preserve so much other minutiae about Homestar Runner that I can’t imagine where the policy to not transcribe easter eggs came from. Are we trying to reduce spoilers? In that case, all of the transcripts are also inappropriate. I say we transcribe eggs in the easter eggs section where they are clearly marked and can be skipped by those who want to discover them on their own. Render

I was the one who deleted the Where the Crap Are We? egg transcript. I've probably removed a couple of others as well, because I wasn't aware that we should be transcribing eggs. Sorry about that. (I assume we are now giving egg transcripts?) --Upsilon

Yes, we are now transcribing easter eggs. I believe I caused the confusion. Sorry 'bout that. — InterruptorJones[[]]

FYI: In the other "Easter Egg Transcribing" section, I proposed a format to transcribe easter eggs with in order to reduce clutter. --oddtodd 11:21, 20 Nov 2004 (MST)

Thumbnails vs full-size images?

I read here that we should be focused on using thumbnails instead of full size images. I've been doing this on some, but I don't want to go nuts before I know I'm not messing things up. Are there any cases where full size screenshots (like this) should be preserved? -- spblat 7:13 PM 23 Oct 2004 (later) foo. Answered my own question. looks like full speed ahead--the standards page is quite clear on this.

Places

Should we start adding "Places (in order of apperance)" on toon pages? I think it would be helpful to new-comers, as well as everyone else. →FireBird

Wikilinks in transcript dialogue

There should never be links in dialogue or email sections.

I'm not so sure about this rule. Certainly we shouldn't create links willy-nilly. But when Strong Bad asks, "Did the quadratic formula explode?", it'd be nice to just link the words "quadratic formula" than to have to propose a whole fun fact about it (which is often not that much fun). - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 01:03, 25 Nov 2004 (MST)

Nah. I'd like to keep it as it is. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

Splitting Fun Facts

I have an idea for splitting the Fun Facts section into multiple smaller segments - so, if we can't get rid of the now-customary influx of "facts", we can at least split them up. I put my proposed edit (which is open for debate!) at 'link deleted'. --Jay 03:44, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)

Sounds interesting and well thought out, but I think we might want to wait for the dust to settle from this whole star thingy before we start to shake things up any more. -- Tom 21:02, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)

Strangely enough, it was the whole star thing that caused me to bring it up in the first place (though I'd been toying with the idea for a while.) --Jay 00:07, 8 Jan 2005 (MST)

I was bored at work and started segmenting some of the Strong Bad Emails. For now I'm not doing any more in the interest that the Wiki should decide on one standard for the fun facts; otherwise I'm just opening up a can of worms that doesn't need to be touched. Kamek 10:19, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)

Since I had to remove the subpages, I moved the proposed changes and example to my talk page. Nothing changed, really. PS. I like the "Fast Forward" category name (used in some kinda robot by Kamek) over my somewhat lame "To be continued..." --Jay 13:06, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)

Well, if the two of you want to tackle this, I don't really see any reason why you shouldn't. I'll try to help when I can. -- AgentSeethroo

I'll go ahead and continue with the refactoring of the Fun Facts. The way I see it is that if something isn't done about it, nothing will get done at all. For the most part I'll try to stick to your proposed standards, Jay. I might add or remove categories if necessary. Kamek 17:59, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)

I think the fun facts layout should be as following:

== Fun Facts ==
=== Trivia ===
Interesting facts about the toon or e-mail.
=== References ===
Interesting references to other things outside Homestar Runner.
=== References To Other Cartoons ===
References to other cartoons.
=== References By Other Cartoons ===
References that other cartoons have made to this toon or e-mail.

I realize that this is roughly what is already being done, but I think the sections should be reworded.

And what about this "gold star" thing? Is it going to happen, or are we going to trash it? Have we even decided yet? →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

As you've probably noticed, I've split all the sbemails and TGS8. The Fun Facts heading is still there, but everything is in subcategories now. The only complaints I got were one person who didn't like me splitting the emails with very few facts - which I have explained (on my talk page) - and another who didn't like the category name "Fast Forward" (because it was too ambiguous) but didn't offer anything better. (Of course, I'd gladly delete the Fast Forward subcategory and every last Fun Fact within it, except that most people don't seem to agree that this is a good idea.) Is everyone okay with this being a permanent change? Any complaints about the splitting itself, rather than the format? Should we update the Standards? --Jay 19:57, 18 Jan 2005 (MST)

Real-World References?

Is just me, or do we need better name for "Real-World References"? The name isn't very accurate when we add facts about other fiction. I suggest "Outside References" or "Cultural References". --Trogga 15:02, 11 Apr 2005 (MDT)

On the one hand, I think you're on to something when you say that "Cultural" might be a better term. On the other hand... well, you'd have to go through a LOT of articles to fix it... --Jay 15:16, 11 Apr 2005 (MDT)

That's why we Projects, my friend. --Trogga 07:41, 13 Apr 2005 (MDT)

Running Gags Section

As you may have seen in a recent STUFF'd fun fact, there have been mixed reactions about letting "This is another instance pof The Cheta's head exploading" be a fun fact, so I'm thinking we should have a Running Gags section for fun facts. WHat do you guys think?

Nah. —FireBird|Talk 15:58, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, FireBird, give us a little more than a one-word response. — It's dot com

The vote to accept is currently 18–2, and I think the two decliners mistook a running gag for an nth instance of something or a common event. As for listing the running gags, I don't have a problem with keeping them in Inside References, since that's what they are. But they should definitely be documented somewhere, at the very least so that they can link to the Running Gags page. I will keep an open mind on this idea for now. — It's dot com 16:02, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning them in Inside References I feel would be the best idea, but I'm fully against a full category for them. —FireBird|Talk 16:07, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with that, I was just surprised when it was STUFF'd. - Ju Ju Master 17:09, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I would like to pop in my say on this: As a relative new-comer to the wiki, one who has been here for a while but is yet to make an account, I think that having a Fun-Facts split section for Running Gags would be good, and if it isn't, it couldn't do any harm. -Ariamaki July 7th, 4:11 AM est.

Creating a page with a bunch of keyboard mashings wouldn't do any harm, either, but we delete it anyway. Adding a new Fun fact that is poor in grammar wouldn't do any harm, but we fix it anyway. Of course it wouldn't do harm, but some just don't like the idea of it. —FireBird|Talk 13:45, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Running gags don't appear in great numbers, so we would probably just have one fun fact in the section. If any. Rogue Leader

I am all for it, it sounds like a great idea. Total Spaceship Guy3 20:47, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Err... Why was my edit reverted?

Internet (as in the Internet; the one Homestar Runner is on) is a proper noun and should thus be capitalized. See Wikipedia:Internet. --_{Úħ¡ βøв} 20:38, 27 Mar 2005 (MST)

Forgot to mention that Flash (as in Macromedia Flash; the format that most Homestar Runner content is in) should also be capitalized, yet the F goes uncapitalized on many pages. --_{Úħ¡ βøв} 20:40, 27 Mar 2005 (MST)

Good question about the "I" in Internet. I'm not really sure, you might want to ask over on InterruptorJones's talk page. As for the "F" in Flash, that's a good point. I change it when I see it, and I've updated the page to note the capital. -- Tom 00:16, 28 Mar 2005 (MST)

I realize this discussion was held months ago, but when I read this just now it reminded me of an article on Wired.com almost a year ago: It's Just the 'internet' Now. They make a lot of good points in there. Macromedia Flash is certainly a formal product name, but "internet" is no different from "radio" or "television". The internet isn't a product, it's a medium. It isn't a proper noun, it's just a noun. In fact, the Wikipedia:Internet article does mention the shift away from capitalizing in the naming conventions section. —

Joey (talk·edits) 19:19, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that article has come a long way since March. I'd think that being a knowledge base we'd tend to use it in the formal sense though. Is that right? -- Tom 22:37, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Duration vs. Running Time

I've noticed that, at least for Strong Bad Email pages/transcripts, the note about how long it is is inconsistent. Some pages use "Duration," others use "Running Time." Not that it's really that big of a deal, but which one would be better to use? (I vote "Running Time.")—StrongstarRunbad 09:14, 30 Mar 2005 (MST)

Template to simplify Cast & Filmography

I've made a template, Template:Film, that can be used for Cast lists in toon pages. It automatically adds the page to the character's Filmography category, so you don't need to explicitly add the filmography category at the bottom of the page. For example, for rampage:

'''Cast (in order of appearance):''' {{Film|Strong Bad}},
{{Film|Strong Mad}}, {{Film|The King of Town}}, 
{{Film|Homestar Runner}}, {{Film|Coach Z}}, {{Film|The Cheat}},
{{Film|Strong Sad}}, {{Film|Marzipan}}, {{Film|Homsar}}

Replaces:

'''Cast (in order of appearance):''' [[Strong Bad]], [[Strong Mad]],
[[The King of Town]], [[Homestar Runner]], [[Coach Z]], 
[[The Cheat]], [[Strong Sad]], [[Marzipan]], [[Homsar]]

...

[[Category: Strong Bad Filmography]][[Category: Strong Mad Filmography]] 
[[Category: The King of Town Filmography]] [[Category: Homestar Runner Filmography]] 
[[Category: Coach Z Filmography]] [[Category: The Cheat Filmography]] 
[[Category: Strong Sad Filmography]] [[Category: Marzipan Filmography]] 
[[Category: Homsar Filmography]]

It seems to simplify things. What do people think? -- thejesterx 09:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similar template for Computer in SBEmails

I noticed that SBEmail pages don't specify the computer the email was received on, they merely show it in the relevant category at the bottom. I made a similar template, Template:Comp to specify the computer Strong Bad used to receive the email, and automatically put it in the category for that computer. For example, in rampage:

{{Comp|Lappy 486}}

Which displays: Computer: Lappy 486, and puts the page in the Category:Lappy 486 Emails category. Anyone think this is a good idea, or is this info unnecessary? -- thejesterx 09:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Standards

With the recent makeover of Characters and Items, the need for better headlines and captiones of images has grown strong. Homestar Coder and myself begone to change those systematically, but to what? All the pictures already changed, like this one used the following standard:

'''[[artical name]]''' (from [[toon this image was taken from]])

For cases with images of more than one character, artical of place it was taken from, all the appropriate links should be made, and the most important ones should be bolded. If this standard is fine with everybody, than I think it need to be added to the standard page. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 14:12, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Should it be a standard to differentiate between easter eggs that occur during the toon and easter eggs that occur at the end of the toon? --Ace00899 02:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

They should already be listed in chronological order and have descriptions about where to find them, like early in the toon or at the end. A better, more pertinent question is, are we going to start listing so-called waiting eggs (those things that happen seconds after the Paper comes down) in the Easter egg section? — It's dot com 05:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

More general "out of the frame" rule proposal

I've seen a lot of fun facts floating around that to me seem analogous to the outside-the-frame facts that we usually delete with a vengeance. Most of them involve a seek bar in some way, or using the right-click menu (by viewing the swf directly or on pages that don't have it disabled). I suggest that the standards for glitches be changed to include something like:

Glitches which occur in such a way that they cannot be seen during normal viewing (for example they happen outside the frame, or need a seek bar) are usually not notable. However if something happens that can only be accessed in this way, but is intentional, or otherwise adds something to the article, then it should be mentioned as a Remark.

Probably would need some rewording before (and if) becoming official, but it gets my point across... the idea is that this would remove all the facts like:

(The canonical) If you view the flash file, String Bad has no body, just a head!
If you use a seek bar to skip some initialisation, things aren't initalised properly (such as the "Undefined.Undefined" level in Stinkoman 20X6)
Anything involving RMB->Pause or RMB->Play
Anything involving the Stinkoman 20X6 Cheat Program, or any other tool that makes things happen in ways they weren't intended to.

However it would still allow facts like:

Moving the mouse over "Store" lots and then over "Downloads" doesn't work properly on Main Page 22 (uses only the controls avaliable in the flash file itself, so comes under "normal viewing")
The moustacioed Homestar in Senorial Day (clearly intentional)
The dancing headless Homestar in mile ("otherwise adds something to the article")

It probably needs rewording, such specifying what "normal viewing" and "adds something to the article" mean, but the spirit of the proposal is there, even if the letter is imperfect. Your thoughts? --phlip ^T_C 13:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If noone has any objections I'll take the axe to Stinkoman 20X6 Glitches, which is full of things like this... --phlip ^T_C 09:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good Philip. -- Tom 17:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Standardize "The Cheat Noises"

My attention was drawn to Lookin at a Thing in a Bag by an anonny disagreeing with another over what it sounded like The Cheat was saying. Now I've seen in various transcript edits a trend to "not put words in The Cheat's mouth" and simply transcribe as "The Cheat noises." This is not universally implemented, though; there are lots and lots of instances of things like {The Cheat squeaks, it sounds like...}. I'm not sure I'd advocate reducing everything to "The Cheat noises;" in some instances his noise really sounds strikingly like some phrase, enough to note; also variations such as "The Cheat noises in the affirmative" or "The Cheat squeaks softly" (lady...ing) are good. But we seriously need to fix some.
Also, should they be:
THE CHEAT: {The Cheat noises} ... or simply insert it within the flow of other characters' dialogue?

Oh, and one other thing: the colon is bold along with the name, as above, right? That needs to be changed on Lookin at a Thing in a Bag too. —AbdiViklas 00:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of the cases should be "The Cheat noises" or "The Cheat squeaks" or similar. I do believe that there does exist that tiny fraction where it actually sounds like he's saying something. But these cases are quite rare. Also notable are the instances where he was translated courtesy of the "Learn to Speak The Cheat" Easter egg. I like when we can add something to indicate his mood or tone of voice, as you mentioned. Finally, other characters get their own line of text when they speak. Why not The Cheat? — It's dot com 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool. If no one objects, I'll make this my little project. —AbdiViklas 01:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, when the colons aren't bold faced, that's an error of the transcriber. The colons need to be boldfaced. - Joshua

Thanks! I'm doing that too as I encounter them. —AbdiViklas 01:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ignored Rule

If a character does something while speaking a line of dialogue, or if more description is needed for their manner of speaking or inflection (e.g. if they're singing or whispering) the action (if it is not too long to describe in a few words) can be enclosed in curly braces — { } — and made italic, like this: {goes to the refrigerator}. Note that the curly braces themselves are also italic. Short actions like these do not need to be proper sentences.

The bold rule is probably one of the most ignored rules ever. Go through the various transcripts and you'll see tons of examples of long in-dialogue actions, some of which don't even relate to the speaker. This problem needs to be fixed, but it's way too big for me to do alone. (Here is an extreme example of this problem.) - Joshua 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I put this in projects, because that's probably where it belongs. - Joshua 14:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but does anybody read that page? You should delete it from either here or there, to avoid duplicating the discussion. — It's dot com 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It belongs in Projects, but I don't think anyone reads that page either, because it is so outdated, and many of the projects aren't done. - Joshua 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sig standards

I realize it's partly my fault for teaching people how to use templates for their sigs and adding an icon to my own sig, but things are starting to really get out of hand. For starters, I propose we restrict images to one 16 x 16 image per sig. If enough people are against images altogether, I don't mind complying and removing my image. Secondly, I think we should prohibit sup and sub tags in sigs altogether. Third, should we have restrictions on the number of colors people are allowed to use in their sigs, or should we prohibit colors all together? Fourth, should we restrict length? I'm not sure how we could police this one since length depends mostly on a person's username. Just some ideas. Talk amongst yourselves. — Joey (talk·edits) 23:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for reference, I'd like to point out the Fanstuff Wiki encountered a similar problem a while back. Information can be found here, along with a link to the rules that were made regarding it. - Joshua 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, these sig standards don't apply to anything sig-like on user page/talk page/sub pages that aren't a sig template. A prime example of a possible conflict would be Wilbur's user sig. As a bonus, anybody who would like to showcase their denied sig could still do so on their userpage. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 02:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

Don't mind them, as long as they're small. And even though I like H*C's cat, I think the images should be static, not animated. — It's dot com
A small one. one that do not highens the line above it in normal text. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep it to < 16px. Larger images get out of hand. — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I like a small image in a sig; it makes people quickly identifiable. I would propose a guideline of 20x20 instead of 16x16. JoeyDay's sig icon is 19px high and it looks just fine to me. Personally I don't mind animated images ;) but if they annoy other people then we could disallow them. Homestar Coder 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
20 pixels is fine. Animated images, to me, are fine now, but may have a tendency to get out of hand in the future. I think that animated gifs should be turned into png versions, so that the image is preserved, but it doesn't get distracting. — Lapper (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize my image was that big. I revise my original proposal. 20 x 20 should be good. — Joey (talk·edits) 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I think images are fine as long as they don't stretch the line of text too high and low. Animated ones don't bug me, as long as they aren't flashy. (For example, H*C's pic is fine to me.) - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Animated ones are fine. Just limit one image per sig, and limit size (maybe something from 20 to 30 pixels). «Rob» 13:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove sup/sub

Agree. — It's dot com
Don't mind. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
They interfere with above/below text. Remove. — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- What browser are you using? My sig doesn't affect line spacing for me... --phlip ^T_C 00:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  - It isn't necessarily that the line spacing is affected, just that they crowd the line above or below. At least, that's how they show up on mine. — It's dot com
    - Actually, on mine, Phlip, I use Safari, and to me the spacing in this <h3> is normal except for the line where your sig is. — Lapper (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Could you look at this (permanant link to the current Sandbox, since it could very well change soon) to see which lines have the spacing messed up? Are the ones faked with <span> ok? If they are, I'll change my sig to use them instead... --phlip ^T_C 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        I seriously don't see anything wrong with them. We should have a limit to the number of characters in the tags though. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        Every line in that example sandbox page has extra padding either above or below in Firefox. What browser are you using Phlip? — Joey (talk·edits) 23:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        Firefox. And they all look fine to me (well, if you're being picky, there's maybe 1px here or there, but nothing that you'd notice in flowing text... and some of that is probably rounding errors anyway...[1]) --phlip ^T_C 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        All the line spacing looks (mostly) uniform to me. My point earlier was not that the spacing is messed up by the sup/sub, but that the sub from one line often collides with the sup from another. — It's dot com
Sups and subs don't bother me at all. - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Allow sups and subs. «Rob» 10:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Colors

Do not prohibit. Neutral about whether there should be a limit on the number of colors. — It's dot com
Limit to 3 or 4 colors. differant tones of the same color (i.e. dark green and light green) count as one color. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Colors should clearly contrast with the white background. (i.e. Bright yellow should not be allowed) — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No limit on colors unless signature is unreadable on white. Homestar Coder 18:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speaking of that, some people have tried using backgrounds other than white. We should insist on white backgrounds with no borders. — It's dot com
  - I agree. Before you (or someone) interfered, User:GWR 2004's signature was a bit out of hand with borders. — Lapper (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- No borders, no special backgrounds, no unreadable or otherwise annoying colors. Other than that, I'm fine with them. - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Do not prohibit, but no annoying colours. If someone feels that the colours in someone's sig are annoying, they can advise that person on their user talk page. «Rob» 10:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just what constitutes an annoying color? Out of the limited number of hex codes to create a color, how many of them are annoying? I R F 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  - The most annoying color (really, the only one I've ever seen) is bright yellow, which is all but completely unreadable. — It's dot com
    - Heh, that used to be my color. But yea, I agree. It shouldn't be a problem too often, and I'm sure if it ever does come up that one user wants a near unreadable color, a comprimise can be reached. But I would limit it to no more than 3 color changes in a sig, regardless of whether it's the same or not. eg: red, blue, green would be allowed, but red, blue, red, blue, green, red, green, blue would not. The rainbow sigs are flashy and childish, IMO. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 02:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow any color so long as it does not pose a usability issue. - Qermaq - (^T/C) 03:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Length restrictions

Need to find a way to calculate how much is too much. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No longer than the number of characters in the entire user name, plus a few. — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem. how many is a few? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally think Lapper's is the perfect maximum length after the user name. — It's dot com

I'd say a good standard to use would be the length of a timestamp. I count 29 characters there. Maybe a little shorter would work. 20 or 25 maybe?. -- Tom 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature for some ideas. -- Tom 01:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There's also the problem with people using large fonts to make their sig much wider than it should be with only their name. Homestar Coder 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom on that one. 20 characters should be the absolute longest. Besides, usernames themselves longer than 20 characters are somewhat rediculous. — Lapper (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should measure any length restriction in characters, rather in pixels on a "normal" display. This is because (1) the fonts are proportional (2) someone can always use style="font-size:10000%" or something, (3) this will also take into acount the image icon thingies. --phlip ^T_C 22:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The fanstuff uses Username + 6 large characters or 12 small characters, images counting as large characters. That works for me. - Joshua 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, the rules regarding sig lengths (which was the main reason why those rules were introduced to the fanstuff wiki, because some sigs were a whole line) at the fanstuff wiki should work fine here. Also, text larger than "normal" size (the default size that the wiki uses) should be the limit of how big you can have the text in your sig. «Rob» 10:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of these sigs are three and four times the length of the user's name. I propose that an entire signature—including the name, image, and links (if any)—should fit into a box 20 x 160 pixels under normal settings: (20 n's will fit in that box, but you can fit upwards of 25 normal-size letters, spaces, and other characters, depending on certain things). I started measuring signatures on the STUFF page, and nearly everybody's fits into it. I think if a name is so long that you can't put a talk link after it and still fit it in the box, then maybe you should omit the link. Or if someone's trying to fit "(talk about my stuff • all the things I did)," but it won't fit, reduce it to "(talk • edits)." Using <small> is also an option, as long as it's not too small. — It's dot com
- No one has posted to this discussion in a little bit, so I thought I would bring it up again. Here is an image of all the current signatures. You probably will need to click on the image to enlarge it. The gray line is my suggested width of 160px. I don't think going over the line just a few pixels is that bad, but on the other hand some of them are quite long. Check out the one near the bottom. — It's dot com 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Wow, thanks for the image, dot com. That's very helpful. I mentioned this in IRC yesterday, but I'll say it here so everyone else can hear it. I really think 25 n's would be better. Somewhere around 200px. That includes a few more people that are straying outside of 160px, while still giving no excuse for the really long folks. I just don't want anyone to accuse us of being unreasonable. — Joey (talk·edits) 17:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Make it official?

So... is this debate ongoing, or can some official sig standards be written and added to the page now? Recently I was trying to find such standards for a user with a long sig and couldn't; Rogue Leader finally directed the user to this talk page. If we have "standards," they shouldn't be on a talk page, should they? And if we're delaying because it's still under discussion than... let's build a fire under it. —AbdiViklas 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I got a fancy signature (User:Nerd42/sig I would like to be able to use. I've put it on all the wikis that I am a member of that allow signatures. I'd be for the No Images policy, but I don't see why colors should be a problem. Length - well, as you can see from mine, I'm not that concerned LOL but if it takes up more than one line on a page, that would be a huge problem. Other than that, I don't see why people think they have to regulate everything ... I think any such policy ought to be worded using phrases like "within reason" and if someone's signature actually becomes disruptive to the site, then admins could deal with that on a case-by-case basis, don't you think? --_{NERD42 email talk h²g² pedia uncyc} 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if we did have a "within reason" policy, I think your current sig would be one of the ones that we would deem disruptive and would deal with. Also, it looks like User:Thunderbird L17 is currently dealing with it on what I would call a case-by-case basis on your talk page. -- Tom 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think it's gone on long enough, that we can make a final version. I've left a rough suggested final version below, for anybody to edit, until it's ready to be put into motion. Should we explain how to template your sig? Also wording could be made more professional, and the size point should be clarified, as it seems as though the size was never decided upon. Should it perhaps be made a bit bigger? I also added a suggested point that wasn't really discussed at all, but specifically with pages like this, I think it could become a problem in the near future. So what does everybody think? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Signatures (Final Version)

See HRWiki:Signature for the current signature standards.

One thing I think we might want to do is put somewhere, maybe Help:Signature or whatever, is that using Special:Preferences and changing the "Nickname" field to what you want your sig to be is much more preferred than using the a template. Then again, I know many people do not want to look at three lines worth of code for someone's sig whenever they click "edit" on a talk page. I suppose we're a bit late for that though, with such widespread use.

Additionally, creating a template sig is not something a new user should be instructed to do as soon as they join. It most cases, it's not necessary to use a template. -- Tom 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true. As long as it's a somewhat small code, you may as well stick to the usual box. The one problem with that is for users such as this one, who like their signature to be uniformed, and yet also changable, which is quite understandable. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom; yes, we should make it clear that it's perfectly alright not to make a custom sig at all; that'll probably head off a lot of problems at the pass. A few thoughts:

What's up with the limitation on sig changes? I can imagine it could get confusing, and hard to recognize people once you've gotten used to a certain sig configuration, but I can't really think of any other detrimental effects. At least, I can't think of any reason not to say "shouldn't be frequent" instead of "only once or twice a year".
What constitutes a "distracting" but non-animated image? Might be good to spell out.
There's already step-by-step directions for how to implement a custom sig at Help:Signature; this should link to there and—especially—vice versa! —AbdiViklas 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You pretty much spelled out the problems yourself. It became a big enough problem over at the Forum to require change locking. We don't want the same thing to happen here.
We can't list every possible image that would apply, but it's safe to say that if such an image exists, a user will come up with it. By saying "no distracting images", it leaves it open to our judgement just what abuses the privilages. In general though, I'm sure most will be allowed.
We're still discussing that, we'll most likely change that page and link to this, line them all up, etc, once these standards are done and ready to implement.

Hope that answers your questions, Abdi. Viklas. notstrongorbad. Watered down. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from "one or two" to "a couple", which is about the same except with a little more wiggle room. When I was talking about "distracting", I was actually trying to leave room for a non-distracting animated image while giving a justification for asking someone to remove their distracting animated image. But I suppose there could be a distracting static image, too. — It's dot com 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One last thing: Should the examples with the arrows be reversed? Or is that just me? -- Tom 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you. I think it makes more sense reversing them from what they are now. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

These standards were implemented and moved to HRWiki:Signature at 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The nicknames and usernames should not have been switched: "If you use a shortened or altered form of your official name, it must be something that suggests your username." Dot com must suggest It's dot com, not the other way around. — It's dot com 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please post any further discussion on this subject on HRWiki talk:Signature.

Transcript Question

Why do we script Homestar as 'Homestar Runner' in transcripts? I mean all the characters and the creators refer to him as just Homestar, shouldn't we treat 'Runner' as like a last name and just call him Homestar? The Pardack

Simply because Homestar Runner is his full name. It's just proper. Homestramy20|^Talk 17:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And quite a bit of the time in running text we will say "Homestar Runner" on first mention and then "Homestar" thereafter. The only place we spell it out every time is the label when he's speaking dialogue. — It's dot com 17:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Plus, TBC get kinda capricious about last names. By the above argument, Strong Bad should just be Strong, but we've never heard that. Marzipan has been referred to as "Miss Pan," but the Poopsmith has never (thankfully) been "Mr. Smith." This has helped lead to the current discrepency in The Ugly One's name; according to comic she'd have to be Joy, Jennifer, or Virginia, but a logical extension of Issue 10 would imply that it's "The." None of it's written in stone. —AbdiViklas 17:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the girls' names are Joy Cheerleader, Kristen So and So, Jennifer What's Her Face, and Virginia The Ugly One. Mrs. So and So-erson's maiden name was Erson, and she has chosen to hypenate upon marrying Mr. So and So. — It's dot com 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think Strong Bad's given name is Bad, and he would be rightly called Mr. Strong in that case. Since the Brothers Strong share the name Strong, it's only reasonable that Strong is their surname. — It's dot com 18:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup. (Maybe they're Asian!) But he doesn't correct the interviewer who calls him "Mr. Bad" in the Screen Savers Interview. —AbdiViklas 18:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Not all that different from a kid calling a camp counselor Mr. Joe (Dr. Joe), Mr. Smiley (ran our college cafeteria) or even Mr. Ed. :) Ok so college students count as kids, right? --Stux 19:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do I fell like I opened a Pandora's Box? Anyway so what if it's his full name. In the DVD transcript we don't call the creators Mike Chapman and Matt Chapman we just call them Mike and Matt how is Homestar different The Pardack

By the way, we are inconsistent on this last point. — It's dot com 06:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's a convention of Southern etiquette (with roots in slavery) that the "Mr./Miss [first name]" construction is perfectly polite. You run into it every now and then with the Ya-Ya Sisterhood types, Southern belles on Celebrex. As Georgians, the phenomenon is probably not foreign to TBC's experience. —AbdiViklas 00:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Make decisions on the wiki

The following discussion was from a talk page for a now deleted template. It has been copied here because it illustrates an important point: namely, if you make an important decision outside the wiki (for example, in the IRC channel), you must have the same discussion on the wiki so that everyone may participate, and no formal action should be taken until that happens.

When was this article [the "Powered by The Cheat" template] voted on deletion? I tried looking around but found no discussion (and I don't remember voting for it in the Basement either (er where can I link to that too?) --Stux 17:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't ever been voted for deletion, as it was created just recently. The question is, should it? —BazookaJoe 17:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, stux, the discussion was on the IRC channel of the wiki. It included: Lapper, BazookaJoe, Rogue Leader, FireBird and myself. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

We're thinking just like the Toons, Shorts, and OldTimey templates were deleted, so should this be. People can just navigate through the category and the article itself. —BazookaJoe 18:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Is it possible that you could post a transcript of said discussion? While I agree that the IRC channel is a great place for discussion, making decisions such as these should not be considered final in that medium for users (like me) that do not frequent the channel. (It also does not have the permanence that a talk page has which can be later referenced to.) That way the entire Wiki community is given a decent chance to contribute. As for deletion, I am not sure, this template is not as general as the other two. Like my opinion for old timey it could be cleaned up. I really have mixed feelings about it. In general, I think templates like these make navigating through themes a lot easier than going through categories (such as the main characters), provided they are not overboard. Newer, shorter templates that replace the deleted ones might prove to be useful. --Stux 19:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why I haven't deleted it yet. —BazookaJoe 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Stux, the idea of deletion was agreed upon by 5 respected users. We have been using the categories for a long time. Why stop now. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 19:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the transcript form the chat:

<BazookaJoe`> I was going to fix {{PbtC}}
<BazookaJoe`> Crap, should we even keep {{PbtC}}?
<FireBird> Not if we've gotten rid of {{shorts}}.
<Elcool> and {{toons}} and {{Old-Timey))
<BazookaJoe`> sigh...
<BazookaJoe`> Then I won't fix it up.
<BazookaJoe`> We'll throw it onto the pile.
<FireBird> Aww.
<Lapper> how's that?
<Lapper> Guys?
<BazookaJoe`> I think I'm just going to delete {{pbtc}} outright.
<BazookaJoe`> But... eh, some people might like it.
<BazookaJoe`> no, they won't
<BazookaJoe`> here I am going back and forth on this one.
<Rogue_Leader> please delete Toons, old timey, and shorts though
<Elcool> just let me get the code first. ok?
<BazookaJoe`> Will do.
<FireBird>Elcool: If nobody likes the delete, we can always back it up.
<BazookaJoe`> are {{toons}}, {{shorts}}, and {{Old-Timey}} deleted yet? if not, can you tell me when you've put the code up on /templates?
<Rogue_Leader> they arent
<Rogue_Leader> I think Elcool already transfered the code
<Elcool> yeah.
<Elcool> everything is cool
<BazookaJoe`> Okay. No one needs the templates anymore, then?
<Lapper> So are all the templates declined in voting going down?
<Lapper> Yeah, Elcool just backed up {{pbtc}}.
<Rogue_Leader> yeah
<Rogue_Leader> Two temps still need voting on

— Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing I seriously dislike about that conversation is that 4 people think that they represent the opinions of the entire wiki. One person saying that, "No they [the entire wiki] won't [like it]," is not considered a consensus. Also, why was every instance of this template removed, even when it is still pending deletion? - Kookykman (t)(c)(r)

For the same reason a fun fact is removed (even if it's a good one) if it's on STUFF. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for posting a copy of your transcript and for not deleting the template outright. However, with all due respect, I must agree with Kookyman's comment. The deletion was not voted inside the wiki, but rather in a forum outside the wiki. Not all of the usual contributors has chimed in on this deletion (even if it's similar to the previous deltions) -- this is not the same situation, in my opinion, as when STUFF'd items are closed and subsequently deleted. Moreover, Kookyman makes a good point: the template has been removed from all the articles it served before what I believe to be a proper consensus was reached. Not that creating the template in the first place was a consensus, but it was done in good faith, to serve a good purpose. I assume this deletion was also done in good faith, and to serve a good purpose, but I think this has to be finalized through the proper channels that have already been established in this wiki. --Stux 21:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the IRC wasn't the best place to discuss this, but we wanted a consensus upon it before we put up the tags. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Two noteworthy things here: First, anytime you have an extrawiki discussion where you make a decision—chat, email, phone call, wherever—you must go to the appropriate talk page and have the same discussion, to allow everyone to participate. And that's all I have to say about that. Second, I don't see what benefit this template would give that would justify keeping it. It's basically just a rehash of the category, and the pages it contains just share that one loose thread. — It's dot com 21:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

We are not denying that what we did is right. We were just discussing about the wiki and we believed that the template was useless. We were not going to out right delete it. We were simply going to put up the tags to see if anyone would mind. Please note that we do not have it put up for speedy delete. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying anybody's denying anything. Since most of this page has been about the procedure instead of whether this template should be deleted or not, I felt it important to comment first on that. That's all. — It's dot com 21:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Now, about the template. We have a category. We don't need an extention on that. We seriously need a standard on templates. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A good guideline would be that templates are made to order lists in non-alphabetical order, while categories can do only that. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Or to exclude parts of the category. The strongbad_email.exe template only needs the different discs, but the category includes much more than that. — It's dot com 00:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea very much! Kind of what I was thinking (sorta) -- like have this template have "powered by the cheat" items only (a.k.a. those under the powered by the cheat button), and the old timey could've had only their main characters. That way people would be looking at, say old-timey homestar (or fhqwa.. oh I won't even try!) and then think "oh i wanna look at old timey strong bad!" and have to click once on the template to get there without having to go through the category or the old timey page itself. (We web surfers are a lazy bunch ain't we!?) For more involved things (a.k.a minor items/characters/details), they can use the category of course! I figured it would be defined as a convenient complement, not a replacement, to the category system (as it already has served itself to be). Not only that, it's good looking too! (Wow, my messages are only getting longer and longer.) --Stux 00:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It would already be linked there. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It would already be linked where? you mean the page, or the category? --Stux 00:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

The page. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I checked it out and noticed that that may not always be the case. For example old timey Homestar doesn't link to old timey stwong baad. --Stux 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That is sad. But I do not think that we need another template for old timey characters. Or am I reading this incorrectly? Rogue Leader / (my talk) 01:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it does link to Category:Old-Timey Characters, which links to way more information that you'd want to put on a template. Which is the point, I believe. --phlip ^T_C 03:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

True. Very true. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 03:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rogue, What do you refer to by "that is sad"? And yes, it is the point, I am trying to play devil's advocate here a little. --Stux 04:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That there is no link on the page to Strong Bad. Ok, this is not the place to discuss templates. Let us focus on this template. I doubt the usefulness of this. If this is kept, and I think that is a big if, this will need some huge cleaning. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 14:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You could always just take off the "Somewhat PbtC" listing.

You really just have to look at the category and you will see all of these links. Even Somewhat PBTC. This is really not needed. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I still have mixed feelings about the template. My question is: is Powered by the Cheat important enough to merit a table to facilitate navigation (much in the same way Main Characters, Limozeen and Decemberween do)? --Stux 18:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the problam here, that there is no connection to all the toons, exept for the fact the The Cheat made them. not lie Cheat commandos or Strong Bad Emails. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. They have their own section in the toons menu, and share many characteristics that reflect The Cheat's personality as presented in its description page. --Stux 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Elcool is right. There is a huge differfence between New Boots and mile. The only thing that it shows that relates to the chorts personality is that he has a huge ego. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That is fine. I don't see the differences as big as you do, and I seem to be the only one that thinks as such. They have been deemed big enough that this merits removal, so by all means, go ahead. --Stux 21:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Guestbooks

Moved to HRWiki:Guestbooks

deletion policy?

Who decides what gets deleted and when around here? Most wikis have deletion policies. This one just seems to have a template ... but that's it. If admins are just going to DELETED stuff without votes, why have the template in the first place? --_{NERD42 email talk h²g² pedia uncyc} 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a vote. People post why or why not it should be kept on the talk page, if it's valid enough. --DorianGray

And then after around a week or two, a qualified admin will look at all of the arguments, see what the general consensus is, and take appropriate action, either by removing the tempate or deleting the page. these two are good examples of heated discussion between deletion and acceptance of a page, that was finally accepted. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

seems pretty subjective to me. this is the most up-tight wiki I've ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. --_{NERD42 email talk h²g² pedia uncyc} 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, The Timeline article has been restored as dicussion has not yet concluded. It had been removed by accident. --Stux 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheat Noises

I'm not really sure where to put this, but here goes. There should be a standard term for Cheat noises. Are they squeaks? Cheat noises? The Cheat noises? I've seen these and maybe more on this site. What I'm basically saying is that is should be consistent. I'm against calling them squeaks (they're not shrill enough), though an onomatopoea would be helpful. Often, it's a "meh" or "nmeweh." The closest he gets to squeaking is when he blows up or flies (like when Strong Mad throws him in Happy Fireworks), though that's more like a "mweeeeeeeee...." Okay, I'm starting to feel like Clancy. I don't care, just get his noises a name. Uh...Cwapface 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. From what I've seen, "The Cheat noises" is the most common thing, and it seems like the best choice to me, because it covers the gamut of sounds he makes. That's what I would propose. Heimstern Läufer

05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says to write {The Cheat noises}, and it also says "more can be added to the stage directions to indicate emotion or other actions" (so {angry The Cheat noises} is acceptable.) Granted, I wrote that rule, but it's still good to have a standard. --Jay (Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. This very same discussion (dated in October) is seen above, although the Manual of Style had no such recommendation at the time. --Jay (Talk) 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so we already have a standard for it. Then we can implement it. Oh, and by the way, I think this discussion's topic is slightly different from the one above, which seemed to concern the issue of putting words in The Cheat's mouth. Heimstern Läufer

05:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair point. But, yes, we do technically have a standard. --Jay (Talk) 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

However I have to point out that The Brothers Chaps have remarked that they always record new The Cheat noises in nearly every cartoon. Therefore in some special cases, what The Cheat is trying to say is understandable, in some cases obvious. When that happens then that can also be noted. one example is here, look at the last Easter Egg of the list. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, yes, because it's a reference. But, for the most part, where does the line get drawn. I've seen cases where some people would hear The Cheat noises and thing Teh C. was saying one thing, while others would swear he was saying some other thing, while yet others wouldn't hear any English at all. --Jay (Talk) 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps create STCTCN (Select The Correct The Cheat Noise)? I dunno, I'm going to bed. When you start understanding The Cheat, you know you've been around H*R too much. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Debuts

See, everyone's been telling me only Characters have Debut noted. What else goes on the list? What's off the list? - Qermaq - (^T/C) 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why places can't have debuts, and I've seen many articles that support this. Actually, however, I'm not sure why we list debuts at all. The lists are in chronological order. Wouldn't the first toon in the list be the debut by definition? — It's dot com 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but by marking Debut, not only do we clearly show that it is a chronological list, but we show wheather it goes oldest to newest, or newest to oldest. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding that our Manual of Style currently says to indicate debut if it is "a character, place, or item". - Qermaq - (^T/C)

00:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Other standards

This page of standards describe how should a toon be formatted, but what about other pages? We need a page instructing users to use mdashes on lists, how to caption an images correctly, how to format songs and visuals page, etc. This is so that if a user makes a mistake, we can reffer him or her to the right page for more info. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 08:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It could probably be added to HRWiki:Manual of Style. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style for ideas on expanding.) -- Tom 09:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

When TBC fix things

I think we need to give TBC credit when they fix things. (And who knows, maybe they fix things by reading the wiki.) It seems petty to forever point something out as being wrong when they have taken the time to correct it. There are two test cases: candy product → Fixed Goofs and Podstar Runner → Fixed Glitches. — It's dot com 05:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. And Random Toon also had some good fixes. -- Tom 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable Flash artifacts

See Talk:Luau Main Page

"Waiting eggs" Redux

It seems whenever this comes up that the issue usually gets glossed over... after seeing recent edits about this on Easter egg I thought I'd bring it up again...

Events that occur after a pause after The Paper comes down are considered Easter eggs by TBC. They call them "waiting eggs". They are every bit as hidden as the clicking eggs – I know I personally only found out about them by leaving the process running for a bit longer while I did other things, and heard Strong Bad start talking again. Just because they're hidden behind a pause instead of a mouseclick means nothing. I'd wager many people will click the "back" link as soon as it appears and the movement stops, and be none the wiser. Also, we consider Secret Song to be an Easter Egg, and few people would disagree – however it is arguably more noticable than other waiting eggs, because at least you can see the "Play" light is still lit on your CD player, whereas in an email it looks exactly like it has finished when it reaches the waiting egg.

As for what Strong Bad says in bottom 10, it can be taken either way – either he's saying that waiting eggs aren't real Easter eggs, or it's a joke of having him say there's no Easter eggs in an Easter egg.

As for how to transcribe them... I do believe that it reads better to have the waiting eggs at the bottom of the transcript, rather than in the ==Easter Eggs== section. However, for the purposes of fun facts (such as property of ones being the last egg-free email) they should be considered Easter eggs, and if moving the transcripts into the ==Easter Eggs== section would alleviate confusion then so be it.

If there's no real discussion, and no reasons why we shouldn't consider them Easter eggs, I'll go through and make the requisite changes myself... I'm sick of there being all talk and no action. --phlip ^T_C 14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For it to be an egg, it would need to be a noticeable pause. For example, if Strong Bad says something immediately after the paper, with no pause or the slightest of pauses, that should not be considered hidden. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So things like the IM conversation at the end of i she be would not be considered an Easter egg. I agree with that, because it's almost impossible not to notice the scene changing to The Cheat's computer room. However, I also think that things like the process, bottom 10, theme park and boring (really) should be considered Easter eggs, as for many people, they are just as hard to find as clicking Easter eggs, and possibly even harder. I mean, who leaves the toon on for 15 seconds, expecting something to happen while they wait? Before I knew about the Wiki, I know I sure didn't. To make a long story short, I agree with all of Phlip's points, and the fact that TBC themselves refer to them as Easter eggs should, in my mind, make this decision a no-brainer. — Has Matt? (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have thought that waiting eggs should be considered true Easter eggs for over six months now. If we don't want to move the transcripts to the Easter egg sections, we should at least make a "see waiting egg above" note or something. — It's dot com 17:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that leaving the waiting eggs in the transcripts is a bit easier to read. I'd also support the "see waiting egg above" note if we decided to go with that. -- Tom 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So, does this sound good?

Things that happen if you wait awhile after the toon has "ended" should be transcribed at the end of the transcript, with a brief mention in the Easter eggs section reading "This toon/email/etc has a "waiting egg", see the Transcript for details."

--phlip ^T_C 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Tom 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It guess it's a decent compromise, but I'd personally prefer it to be treated like a normal egg. I'm not going to throw a fit or anything though. - Joshua 03:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Bluebry 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the following to anything.

Wait after The Paper comes down for more comments from Homestar (see transcript above).

Is this a good way (format-wise) to do it? — It's dot com 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A great question no one's answered. An egg is something discovered by not doing the usual, right? So (as I said above) if the extra bit comes on the heels of the Paper, it's not an egg. But if there's a noticeable delay, it is an egg. If it's not an egg, put it in the transcript. proper. If it is an egg, add it to Easter eggs saying, for example, "If you wait after The Paper comes down, Strong Bad...." Keep it simple. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Email classes

So, if there's no class .lappy or class .compy, why are they routinely used in the toons? Thinking forward to the future (a point to which thinking forward is best), when a new computer arrives would we be better served keeping the classes "lappy" and "compy" in the mix, so that a vastly different email format will be more easily accomodated? I was going to add a note (a note!) saying "Note: while "compy email" and "lappy email" are commonly used in transcripts in place of "email", they currently do not affect the rendering of the page." but thought we should decide whether we want to discourage their use or encourage their use in transcripts, based on the thoughts above. The classes are useless, but may at some time be semantically relevant; and as most users are ignorant of CSS, it might be wise to encourage their inclusion, as there is no harm in it, and it may make future transitons easier. Should this note continue "They should be avoided" or "These should be used, however, to ensure forward ease in accomodating changes to the email format."?- Qermaq - (^T/C) 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How about something short and simple along the lines of "Please use the classes "compy email" and "lappy email" to ensure future compatibility". Loafing

03:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My original wording is here. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your original wording :-) Loafing

03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Camera moves in transcripts

I suggest we add to Standards for transcripts that "camera" moves are to be transcribed according to established standards.

Camera actually moves:

TRUCK - camera trucks left or right

BOOM - camera booms up or down

DOLLY - camera dollys toward or away

Camera does not move, but the angle or closeness of focus does:

PAN - camera pans left or right

TILT - camera tilts up or down

ZOOM - camera zooms toward or away

Sometimes (esp with dolly and zoom) it's hard to tell which is which. But we should be as precise as possible if we're going to describe the visual action. - Qermaq - (^T/C) 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is hard to tell, and it would be the source of much heated (and moot) debate. Technically, there is no difference between scene or camera movement in a flash cartoon anyway. We should just go with pan, tilt, zoom. Loafing

03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree there should be a standard, but there are distinctions. For example, in Sbemail 150?!? when the scene changes from the computer room to the basement,. that's clearly not a tilt, that's a boom. Similarly, a pan and a truck differ because the former shows us a circular path, the latter a straight path. It's really only dolly and zoom that are confusing. If the range is great, it's a dolly. (As when one goes from a tight shot to an extrem,ely long shot: that's probably a dolly.) My point is we should encourage accurate terminology in describing what happens, and use the terminology that exists in the film industry. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

03:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this. I agree with being as precise as practical (not necessarily as precise as possible). That is, if we can tell it's a truck and not a pan, then of course we should note it as such, but we shouldn't fight over the close calls. — It's dot com 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, in the meantime, I did notice that I got the terminology wrong. Part of my problem was that "panning" in a 2D environment (for example flash) is basically equivalent to truck/boom. Without the motion parallax of course. Somehow I doubt that it will be easy to apply conventional camera movement terms to Homestar Runner flash. The lack of perspective (is there any actual instance of PAN in any toon?), the artificial motion parallax... I'm not sure about this. Loafing

03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dot com: I agree, my "precise as possible" is the same as your "precise as practical". Loafing: if it's on the short range, as is normal, stationary camera moves are sufficient, as that's simpler. When it's a clear truck (over a large area, where a pan is not possible) then we say so. But yes, we'd assume the cameral is stationary unless it has to move, so pan, tilt and zoom are the default unless we have evidence it's a truck, boom or dolly. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not yet buying it. Your suggestion is basically to say "In real life, they would have used this camera transition in this case", while they obviously did not use that camera transition in the actual toon. For example, a real camera pan (even a short one) does not preserve horizontal lines. A short camera movement to the side in an H*R flash toon usually *does* preserve horizontal lines. On the other hand, a short camera movement in a toon might actually be a simulation of a real camera pan. Errrmmm... I'm'a gonna go ahead and sleep on it. Loafing

03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More precisely, what I'm saying is that when we're talking about a little move, it's not discernable whether it's a pan or dolly, or a tilt or boom. So we assume it's the simplest - a pan or a tilt. Only when we see evidence that it CANNOT be a pan or a tilt do we describe it as a truck or a boom. Again, Sbemail 150?!? is an example of where you cannot call it a tilt, so it must be a boom. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cast list formatting

Hey, check out the Cast section for A Decemberween Pageant ! That's pretty spiffy lookin'! But... it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the Wiki style. I was thinking of reverting it to make it more uniform, but it's just so darn purty... and neat... and grood looking. So, um, do you think it'd be okay to endeavor to adopt this style for the entire Wiki? Or are we just too used to the original style? kai lyn 00:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you reverted it, you would be undoing a change that was made over two years ago, and the way it looked before was pretty shabby. Therefore I don't think you should change it back. As for changing the whole wiki to match, meh, I'm currently okay with it just being a special case. On the other hand, it might look good on other toons too. — It's dot com 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay! That's fair enough! So, if I come across a page with a long cast list, I'ma go ahead and change it to this style... But I'll at least wait a while and see if anyone objects to this first. kai lyn 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Awwiiiiight! I'm going to change up the Dangeresque 3 cast stuff riiiiight... abooooouuuuut...NOW! kai lyn 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dot Com, The way we do it works well for most toons, but I think any toon where a character is playing another role is an option for the bulleted style. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely! I won't touch anything else! But I did change up 2 Dangeresque cast lists. kai lyn 21:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ilko. Bluebry 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Split the Standards

The way I see this page now, it is divided to two large, unrelated sections: How to act on the wiki (Link once, be bold, etc.) and how to actually format a toon's page (what goes where, how to make fun facts, etc.). For the sake of argument, before any change is made, I will call these parts Standards A and Standards B, respectively.
What I propose is to make a new page called HRWiki:Policies which will have two sections with links. The first part will be with links to all the working-of-the-wiki policy pages (Guestbooks, Signature, User space, etc.) currently only found in Category:HRWiki Policy which linked from HRWiki:The Stick as well as Standards A.
The second part of the page will link to all the editing standards found is the policy category (Manual of Style, Once And Only Once, Cleanup, etc.) as well as Standards B. Another thing I want to see in this part is (new redlinked) a list on how to format a list, a table, a character page and so on. Now, every page creator takes liberty on the formating of his page and it is rarely changed to fit a common styling.
Please share your opinions. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of what you're saying. — It's dot com 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. If I'm getting this correctly, you're pretty much proposing a big crossroads page where a confused user can look to find what they should do to solve whatever problem they're having. This page would really make Policy articles easier to find, such as this one. -Brightstar Shiner 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You got my vote, I think it's a great idea! Also, I'd like to point out that this very page has elements of both parts (though mostly editing). --Stux 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Choice of screenshot

I think we should make the following an official standard: "Never place anything, especially a screenshot, on the main page that would be a spoiler for someone who hasn't seen the newest toon. When choosing a screenshot for the top of the toon article itself, choose a representative image that can be seen while watching the toon straight through (not from an Easter egg)." We can be a little more relaxed with the article than the main page because someone should be expected not to look at the article before watching the toon, but the main page itself should never contain spoilers. — It's dot com 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's important. Sometimes it's tough to know what people would consider a spoiler (e.g., would people consider this to be a spoiler for unnatural?), but a general rule of thumb might be to pick something representative from the first few scenes (before the plot thickens).

Trey56 06:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I found that exact image to be a spoiler (at least as far as the main page goes) and replaced it accordingly. (Interestingly, TBC chose the same scene as I did for their preview image—which wasn't released until the following week.) — It's dot com 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

90% of the previews in the toons menu are non spoilers. How about we use them from now on? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we need to always match the preview image. Often what we choose works just fine. I'm just saying avoiding main page spoilers is something to put on the standards page, since it's already an unofficial policy. — It's dot com 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah — these things are good to have in writing, for us to refer back to when analyzing whether an image is too spoileriffic, as well as for new people that come along and upload images. I know I've uploaded at least a couple images for the main page that were in retrospect spoilers, just because I thought they were visually interesting. There are enough people that get upset or disappointed by having seen a revealing image that we should definitely make it official policy.

Trey56 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking, perhaps we should just have a default image for a certain update. By that I mean, for every new Strong Bad email, we would have a snippet of Strong Bad typing at his Lappy, for TGS, the cover page that reads "Teen Girl Squad!", etc. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds dull and boring. We already have those generic icons next to each update. An unpoileric image is good enough. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 08:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is considered canon in the HR universe?

This discussion came up when I removed a bunch of items from the Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe page. I contend that anything that's not canon should not affect or appear on that page. Which raises the point; What exactly is considered canon in the HR universe? Well, I searched the site for "canon[2]" and I got only three results. The only one relevant to this discussion was in Trogdor which said:

A 20X6 version of Trogdor, called Trogador, was revealed at the NYU Talk, but did not appear in the Homestar Runner canon until Happy Trogday was released on the third anniversary of Trogdor's debut.

This implies that interviews are non-canon. Even so, It's a far stretch from a declaration of standards. I think there should be an official talk and ruling (to be added as a category on this page) as to what is and is not considered canon. DeFender1031 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to have some kind of well defined way like Holocron's method of determining Star Wars canon but we really don't need that. (We'd just have TBC-canon and N-canon.) Anything done by The Brothers Chaps relating to the Homestar Runner body of work is canon. So yes, any information or things revealed in interviews would be canon, as it's all official. I could be wrong, but I think a better word for "canon" in the quote you have there would be "continuity". Trogador clearly exists but at the time of the interview, he just wasn't in any kind of context, he was in the planning stages. -- Tom 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we would have the T(toon)-canon which is ultimate, the I(interview/commentary)-canon which can be thrown out if necessary, and the N-canon. DeFender1031 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the article I linked to there. Anything directly provided by George Lucas including private notes and other sources is G-canon. Only things done by people other than Lucas is C, S, or N-canon. If you read the article, you'd know that G, C, S, and N stand for something; making up your own lettering system based on what you think is true doesn't really help your argument in this context.

I'm not aware of any Homestar Runner works that anyone would consider to be C or S canon, so thus my conclusion that there exists only TBC and N-canon. Any words uttered by TBC are gospel, no matter the context or if your interpretation of their state of mind.. -- Tom 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. DeFender1031 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for transcripts

How about in transcripts Homestar Runner is just referred to as Homestar after the first mention like so:

HOMESTAR RUNNER: I wike mushmallows.

STRONG BAD: I like Cold Ones.

HOMESTAR: Yeah, dat's weawwy gweat.

— Darth Katana X ( ) 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's not a bad suggestion. It's probably okay either way — just depends on whether people prefer the historical, slightly bulkier way of doing it. I don't really have a preference, personally.

Trey56 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —BazookaJoe 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea! Of course I'd like to also hear it from Dot com's publishing perspective. --Stux 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Standards for Real-World References

Recently, there have been removals of Real-World References because the reference in question was not made by TBC, but instead the sender of a Strong Bad Email. This has been done with island ([3]), extra plug, and underlings ([4]). Currently, there are no official standards regarding this issue.

I believe that references such as these should be noted in the Fun Facts. I'm not saying they must be in Real-World References (although it wouldn't hurt). They could just as easily fit in Trivia or even Remarks. They should be included somewhere, because they point out things that the viewer may not be aware of, which is the entire purpose of all Fun Facts. I was not aware that Yami Yugi was an allusion to Yu-Gi-Oh until I read it on the Wiki, and I didn't know the significance of PlasticDiverGuy's name until I did some serious Googling. Why should we keep a reference from being on the page just because TBC didn't think it up? — Has Matt? (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It makes sense that such references be explained as well. We must keep in mind that even though TBC didn't think it up, they did choose the email out of hundreds maybe even thousands they receive. And more often than not, there is a purpose behind that choice and so background information would be necessary. --Stux 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for including them if they are cryptic and relevant (such as explaining the sender's name). I'm strongly against listing them as RWRs. Only references by TBC should be listed as such. These facts should be added under "Remarks". Loafing

02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Loafing. While they are not TBC's references, they could be included in Remarks if they require explanation. As I'm probably the user who removed those facts, my reasoning is that we are documenting TBC's work, not the work of the contributors. However, I can see a purpose in explaining thru a Remark the relevance of a particular sender's name or other allusion within the body of the email. I'd like to see RWR and the like reserved to references made by TBC. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt I should bring up one of the older, yet more extreme cases of this. This one wasn't as direct a reference, but eventually went to STUFF (the old STUFF), and the discussion was revived a year later. It might be worth looking into. Talk:monster truck#Get Back Loretta! (DECLINED) is the section to look at. --DorianGray 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it's a bit late to be adding to this discussion, but it seemed like the best place to do it. Directly relating to the line of conversation, I'd argue that TBC do sometimes edit emails, and not use them verbatim. As Stux pointed out, they do also choose to use the email, and are thus making a decision to present its contents to their viewership. As a result, it is not generally possible to distinguish exactly what content is written by TBC, and what is contributed from other sources. Therefore, the line is a bit fuzzy, and even if the rule is that references made by the sender should not be listed under real-world references, it's difficult to determine which category any particular reference falls under. In this case, my personal opinion is that we should be lenient in excluding RWRs on the basis that they were from the sender, and not TBC.

As for my tangential discussion: Considering all the furor over RWRs in recent emails, most particularly web comics, I think we need a more formal definition of what a "reference" is. Going off just the word alone, I would think that the referrer would have to indicate in some way what it was referring to. Similarity isn't enough. An instance of something can be exactly like something that previously existed, and yet not be a reference. To put it simply, what is the difference between a reference and a coincidence? TTATOT helps, but doesn't address the fundamental difference. TTATOT just distinguishes between a specific reference and an abstract reference. I think a formal definition, or at least discussion, would help clarify things for users of the wiki, and reduce the number of invalid real-world references proposed. It might help resolve some of the long-standing STUFF debates too. -- LGC&CS 23:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking titles of toons only once

So, right now our policy is to link to any other article only once within a given page. However, this creates the question, "How do we make toons and emails stand out from the surrounding text when they have already been linked to once?" There are a few options:

Link the name of a toon every time it appears (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")
Underline the name of a toon after it has been linked once (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")
Italicize the name of a toon after it has been linked once (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")
Leave the name of a toon unformatted after it has been linked once (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")

Although I think #4 is our default option, I think it is the worst one. Especially for the titles of SBEmails, the title doesn't stand out from the text very well. My top choice is #1: with this option, the title of a sbemail looks exactly the same every time, and if a person is reading the second appearance of that title, they don't have to search for the first appearance to find the link to go to that page.

Do other people agree with this? If so, we would need to adjust our linking once policy and update some articles accordingly. Also, I imagine that this principle would apply to the titles of games, etc. Trey56 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like Wikipedia's policy on the matter:

An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
...

A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;

However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate ... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.

I think linking every single time would be too much. It would probably be too distracting for the reader. But I think linking once in each section of the article is a good compromise. That way, the screen wouldn't be cluttered with a bunch of unnecessary links, and people wouldn't have to search very far to find a link. And about making the title stand out, there's another possibility you haven't thought of: quotation marks. I know we've been avoiding them for a while, but they aren't that bad, really:

Strong Bad appeared in the email "underlings". "underlings" was also the first email to...

It's more subtle than a link, but it still makes it stand out from the text. — Has Matt? (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a helpful page you linked to. Unlike WP, we use links to make the titles stand out in addition to provide a route to their articles. But you bring up a good point about excessive linking nonetheless.

If we didn't link a toon title every time, I would be a proponent of underlining rather than using quotation marks. Underlining makes the titles look consistent to their linked appearance (the only difference being the color). Also, TBC do this (see for example here). Finally, on a very subjective level, quotes look a little less professional to me.

Trey56 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Links are underlined for you here? Not for me. That would seem awkward. I propose using context to solve this issue - if the name of the link alone yields unclear context, then use a qualifying term, such as in "There are several instances of fire in the email pom pom." But I don't see why any adornement is necessary. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the example above is a fair one, because the sentence could easily be recast to avoid the double link (and in the process would read better, too): "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings, which was also the first email to..." Aside from that, I don't have a problem with linking every toon title. In a sense, the link is the punctuation. I strongly disagree with putting quotation marks around them, simply because we've made it this far with relatively no confusion, so there's no need to fix something that isn't broken. On a related note, I think the line where it reads "duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate" is something we should practice for non-toon links (for example, links to characters), unless there is an established and consistent place where the reader can learn to find them (like the cast and places lists on toon articles). — It's dot com 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gags section

This discussion was originally located at Talk:Single Episode Running Gags. See this sample of what a gags section could look like within in an article.

{after some discussion of a page documenting running gags within single toons}

I have an idea! I think we should do something totally different, we should put a new categorie in the toon that has the gag and call it Gags. :It could be placed right above fast forward and it would make everybody happy! We would just put what ever gag that the toon has under there, and we could put whatever running gag it has there. I hope this works, because i'm out of ideas. --Kanjiro

talk 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When someone gives me the okay, i'm going to start work on it.--Kanjiro

talk 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a wiki, you can edit any article always. If you can make it work, then by all means, do. --TotalSpace shipGirl 3 01:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

{after more discussion of the original topic}

So should i do the gag thing or not?--Kanjiro

talk 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Use your judgement. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

03:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is done. I'm not sure if you guys want to keep it or not, maybe STUFF it, i dunnno. Check out this.--Kanjiro

talk 04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys likes it? I haven't gotten any feedback yet, so I'm going to start putting it on more pages.--Kanjiro

talk 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I LOVE IT! I knew there was some kind of a compromise. I'ma join in.^Super!Santana^Duper!

I think "Gags" should be just before "Inside References", though. DEI DAT VM

^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, were going to do it, but i need some help, we are going to have to do every toon, email, and anything with gags in it, i'll take emails, santanahomerunner, you take toons, and get more people to help, this is going to be big.--Kanjiro

talk 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ready? BREAK! ^Super!Santana^Duper!

SantanaHomerunner 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Halt production on gags, we must discuss it more.--Kanjiro

talk 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I Have an Idea, lets ask joey day if he likes the idea, i mean he created the wiki, so he should know whats best.--Kanjiro

talk 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Joey would be the first to tell you that, in cases like this, the consensus of all the editors is what counts, not one person's opinion. — It's dot com 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A "Gags" section would be highly unnecessary. Why have a whole section for something that's A) obvious while you watch it, and 2) would only have one item underneath it? --DorianGray 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It woulden't have one item underneath it, it would have all of the running gags the toon has in it, it might have one if the toon has one running gag in it.--Kanjiro

talk 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which would more than likely be only one, given how the "Single Toon Gags" page was set up. Unless you're proposing to break up what we already have established as Inside References. --DorianGray 21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the section would be against our policy of not explaining the joke to an extent.-- Super Martyo boing! 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sold on the idea yet, but I can see the advantage: it provides a standardized way of listing the running gags which we list anyway but are somewhat inconsistent about. That is, sometimes we hang a link in the transcript or in another fun fact, sometimes we have a separate fact of the form, "This is another appearance of X", and so on. Trey56 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the inside references do not show running gags hidden inisde the toon. Look! They're different! ^Super!Santana^Duper!

Hmm... I don't think that those single-episode running gags should be included. I definitely agree with DorianGray and Super Martyo Brother that that explains the joke.

Trey56 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And if not including them (which is a good idea), it's just unnecessarily breaking up Inside Refs. --DorianGray 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I've often thought there should be a separate section for things that are mentioned but aren't really references. A list of "Callbacks" or "See Also" or something might work. As for "Gags", I'm against anything that would unnecessarily explain jokes within a toon. — It's dot com 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But otherwise running gags are not mentioned. Lookie! Lookie! Neither of them mention the running gag of being "on point", said by Marzipan in the dating sim, relating to the on point kings. ^Super!Santana^Duper!

Oh! And we have forgotten that inside references don't mention something like Toga-yoga from DNA Evidence. And I feel like if it's mentioned three times it's should be like a regular running gag and be mentioned. I mean, it's not like we are giving them their own pages. ^Super!Santana^Duper!

Ditto for secret identity not mentioning Strong Sad hyper due to caffeine.(easter egg) Inside references refers to charactes, other toons etc. Gags would refer to running gags in the toon and gags throughout the toon.^Super!Santana^Duper!

I've been gone for awile, so like what happened? I vote for gags. Oh, and i noticed something that should be placed in single episode running gags: In theme song, strong bad makes shaheen's name sparkle whenever he types it.--Kanjiro

talk 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to remain open-minded about this, but it keeps coming back to this essential question for me: is it necessary to list the gags that occur within a toon? Really, that'd be the only added feature of a Gags section. We can already note running gags in Inside References, or Fast Forward if it's the first instance. But is it really something we need to do? To me, it feels like we are insulting the intelligence of the reader: "Ok, here's what's the funny stuff is in this toon." If you can watch thewhole toon and have the attention span of a four-year-old, you'll know all of this already. The Fun Facts regarding cross-toon gags is important as we cannot assume the reader has seen everything, or indeed anything but this one toon. But we can assume, and I feel must assume, the reader can and probably has seen the toon in question from start to finish, or is at least capable of it, and as such doesn't need the gags which appear spelled out. Mind you, it's not an especially bad idea. But that's not the test, for me anyway. i'm looking at the benefit vs the cost, and the potential insult to the viewer more than offsets the benefit of noting these few extra gags. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I know the running gags are already listed under inside references, but what i did is put all of those gags under gags--Kanjiro

talk 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, everyone should see above, where this idea was already discussed and declined. -- Super Martyo boing! 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just put the thing that talks about an instance of a single toon running gag in inside references?--Kanjiro

talk 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I really, really don't think we should do inside-a-toon gags. 1. They explain the joke. 2. They insult the reader. And for reasons already stated in this and the discussion my last post linked to, we don't need a separate gag section for running gags. It was a good idea, but it (the single toon running gags) makes us seem like know-it-all's and makes the reader think that we think they didn't get the joke because they're stupid or something so we have to spell it out for them. This may cause the reader to vandalize pages or ridicule people on the talk page and, most likely, make it so that every single page that there's a gag section, a message on the talk page, saying "Hey, I'm smart enough to know that the toga-yoga class gag was a joke continued throughout the 'toon, and I don't need it explained to me by some geeks who think they're smarter than everyone else. --65.834.771" --

Super Martyo boing! 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I don't think that's a real IP address)

Ok, if you guys don't want it I'm fine either way.--Kanjiro

talk 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Inside References was a fine place to put instances of running gags until someone tried to count "This is the 1st mention of DNA Evidence" as one of strong badathlon's inside references. (I already moved it to trivia) I do not think gags that ran in one toon are worth mentioning. Bad Bad Guy 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Filmography Pages

I'm just asking, in mini-golf, a lot of characters made appearances, and most of those characters don't have their own filmography pages. The filmographies on their character pages have 5 to 6 appearances listed. I agreed that the Drive-Thru Whale's two appearances don't warrant their own page yet, but the question is, how many appearances does a character need to have their own filmography page? — ^Sam_Fisher _{(Come in, Lambert.)} 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudocharacters never deserve filmography pages (at least that's what I assumed after noticing there was none for The Paper, the Bear Holding a Shark, The Geddup Noise, the Tire, or The Stick). Bad Bad Guy 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Bad's computers actually have some but that's just because we wouldn't have the 178 Strong Bad Emails without them. And theirs aren't even complete because no loafing and candy product are missing from the Tandy's category because it only played small parts in those 2 emails. Bad Bad Guy 02:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast list formatting 2

Should we change "Cast (in order of appearance)" to just "Cast", seeing that things like the Main Page aren't really in a fixed order? --Trogga 01:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they ARE in an order, if you start with "Toons", and go straight down. --DorianGray 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't make you do it in that order. --Trogga 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

@@ Line 699: / Line 699: @@
 :::I agree with Loafing. While they are not TBC's references, they could be included in Remarks if they require explanation. As I'm probably the user who removed those facts, my reasoning is that we are documenting TBC's work, not the work of the contributors. However, I can see a purpose in explaining thru a Remark the relevance of a particular sender's name or other allusion within the body of the email. I'd like to see RWR and the like reserved to references made by TBC. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 ::::I felt I should bring up one of the older, yet more extreme cases of this. This one wasn't as direct a reference, but eventually went to STUFF (the ''old'' STUFF), and the discussion was revived a year later. It might be worth looking into. [[Talk:monster truck#Get Back Loretta! (DECLINED)]] is the section to look at. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
+::I realize that it's a bit late to be adding to this discussion, but it seemed like the best place to do it. Directly relating to the line of conversation, I'd argue that TBC do sometimes edit emails, and not use them verbatim. As Stux pointed out, they do also ''choose'' to use the email, and are thus making a decision to present its contents to their viewership. As a result, it is not generally possible to distinguish exactly what content is written by TBC, and what is contributed from other sources. Therefore, the line is a bit fuzzy, and even if the rule is that references made by the sender should not be listed under real-world references, it's difficult to determine which category any particular reference falls under. In this case, my personal opinion is that we should be lenient in excluding RWRs on the basis that they were from the sender, and not TBC.
+::As for my tangential discussion: Considering all the furor over RWRs in recent emails, most particularly [[web comics]], I think we need a more formal definition of what a "reference" is. Going off just the word alone, I would think that the referrer would have to indicate in some way what it was referring to. Similarity isn't enough. An instance of something can be exactly like something that previously existed, and yet not be a reference. To put it simply, what is the difference between a ''reference'' and a ''coincidence''? [[TTATOT]] helps, but doesn't address the fundamental difference. TTATOT just distinguishes between a ''specific'' reference and an ''abstract'' reference. I think a formal definition, or at least discussion, would help clarify things for users of the wiki, and reduce the number of invalid real-world references proposed. It might help resolve some of the long-standing STUFF debates too. -- [[User:Laser-Grilled Crab & Cheese Sandwich|LGC&amp;CS]] 23:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 == Linking titles of toons only once ==