Talk:Main Page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 16:27, 5 May 2007

New quote/fanstuff/sketch of the week

Just thought I should say so, since it seems I was the first one to notice. I'm in a hurry or I would add the information to the articles.--Tally Solleni 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Secret Collect

I seem to be noticed sooner here, so: Has anyone else noticed Secret Collect lately? It appears to have been fixed. --Jnelson09 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed? It was broken? --DorianGray 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

By "fixed," I mean levels 1-14 have returned. --Jnelson09 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Forum-Appropriate Topics

I'm thinking of maybe removing all forum-appropriate topics from toons and emails and the like. Would this be a good idea, or is it just left best as it is? --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go through any previously existing posts looking for them — for example, a lot of them are leftover from days before we were so strict about this, and we'd like to keep those for historical reasons. But it would be great to keep an eye out for and remove any new posts that fit that category. Trey56 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that seems fair. Good thing I checked before I started, that could have been nasty. :P --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. By the way, I assume you're talking about articles' talk pages, right? Trey56 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The "Great email!" and "I think they're stalling!" topics. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha, yes. Trey56 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In some extreme cases, we might remove a topic completely, but that's unusual. Normally we just ask people to stay on topic on the talk page and leave whatever discussion is already there in place. — It's dot com 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good call — keeping the topics there with the suggestion to stay on topic rather than (removing them) helps prevent other people from starting the same topic again later on. Trey56 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{written in reply to DC} I feel this is the better way to go about it. Remember, lots of people just don't understand the purpose of talk pages. A friendly note about how they're for discussing article content is a lot more newbie-friendly than removing it completely, especially when they may not understand why you would write an edit summary like "rm forum-style comment" or "take it to the forum". Heimstern Läufer 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did the quadratic formula explode?

I tried to go to this site 3 or 5 times last Sunday and it never worked. Was the problem with the site or with my laptop? Bad Bad Guy 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I typed in the site myself, I Googled the site, I tried to enter the site through Wikipedia and none of those worked. Did this happen to anyone else? Bad Bad Guy 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The site was down for a bit. It's back now. — It's dot com 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 ?hrwiki_mwiki6_session=4e39526d2071ea0ffd15b2ecaedaa5f9

I see this or something like this added to the URL whenever I use a link from my userpage or from the first page I visit when I access this site. What does it mean, and how can I prevent it? --Jnelson09 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That happens sometimes. It's nothing to worry about. — It's dot com 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Request

See Talk:Marzipan and Strong Sad's Relationship. Bad Bad Guy 02:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Licensing stuff

A discussion over here got me thinking about licensing issues on the HRWiki. A few thoughts:

1. We should "upgrade" our license to CC 3.0 (it even says we should on our current license's page).
2. We should make the licensing info more prominent, say at the bottom of every page.
3. We should make it clear on the editing page that by writing something, users are automatically licensing that content to the HRWiki, and that HRWiki will in turn distribute it under our CC license.

Copyright issues on a wiki can be very, very tricky, so I think we need to be as clear as possible about how we will license the content people contribute. Thoughts? — InterruptorJones 15:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before (despite that project being abandoned) these licensing clarifications should extend to non-textual media such as original images and/or audio. (This might be even more applicable in the fanstuff wiki). Of course I don't think everyone would be willing to license their media that way, but most people I don't think would mind. --Stux 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with being required to license original images under a CC license. — It's dot com 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

About the "what's new" section

I know it's really only for what's new to the official site, but what about public appearances? I just watched the Georgia Tech video (awesomenessssss) and was wondering if I've missed anything else... I don't really know what I'm trying to suggest here — a new section for recent public appearances (ex. Georgia Tech), side projects (ex. that They Might Be Giants video sample come readily to mind), etc.? — but I thought I'd just bring it up. Perhaps it'd be too small, what with these instances being far and few, but I'd still find something like that beneficial.... kai lyn 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. We're all used to having What's New not being cluttered with TBC's public activities; it's really a site updates thing. — Lapper (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be too cluttered, their appearances are pretty rare and spread out. - Joshua 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The site updates page that the What's New section links to includes public appearances. We should at least be consistent in what we consider an "update". — Has Matt? (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)