HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive 10

From Homestar Runner Wiki

1 Weekly Fanstuff and Sketchbook linking
2 Two more for the history books
3 Checklist Sign up Sheet
4 Cleanup Committee
5 User space edits
6 Update main page
7 3RR Violation
8 "Fatal Error"
9 Idea for Page
10 Deletion category needing attention
11 General Toons Checklist
12 HRWiki store
13 Discuss before creating a new page
14 Deletion categories
15 Autosummary for replies?

[edit] Weekly Fanstuff and Sketchbook linking

Hi guys, after adding notes to the Annual Checklist based on some edits OptimisticFool had to make, I realized there must be a better way to do this. Since Weekly Fanstuff 2008 and Sketchbook 2008 already exist and now redirect to their current counterparts (which should from now one with the checklist in place), and since we have anchor redirects, I think the best course of action would be that any new Weekly Fanstuff and Sketchbook links be constructed as [[Weekly Fanstuff 2008#anchor name here]] instead of [[Weekly Fanstuff#anchor name here]] (and similarly for the Sketchbook). This would save us the trouble of having to scour for these links at the end of the year, yet they'd still work correctly this year. If we decide to follow this idea, how to we make this note prominent so that editors are aware of them when making such links? --Stux 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally, I do make such links when adding or fixing an anchor, or other similar edits. You make a good point, yes. This should probably be done. Nothing wrong with a little future-proofing. Or redirects, for that matter. That's why we have them. --DorianGray 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've switched the links in that page as discussed above. Following this section I'm guessing we think it's desirable. Comments? --Stux 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's trivial, but I think from WF and SK, the "What Links Here" list is a mess and these are the types of changes that would clean it up. It's a slow day at the wiki, so I think I'm going to get busy on it. (Was going to see the new Indiana Jones movie, but there was a long line, so I gave up and now need something to do.)

OptimisticFool 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Our formatting of the pages has been quite inconsistent over the years, so I created a couple of formatting templates and added them to all the pages. — It's dot com 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two more for the history books

Hey guys, I just ran into these two pages: HRWiki:Block log and HRWiki:Upload log which like HRWiki:Protection log and HRWiki:Deletion log should belong in Category:HRWiki History, but currently do not. They are all protected so I bring these up here. --Stux 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checklist Sign up Sheet

While the Weeklies Checklist has been kept up beautifully. Other checklists like Strong Bad Email, which has become quite complex, (and Podstar Runner is new) seem to be falling into some level of disregard. The most visible and common tasks have been taken care of, but the more tedious ones (like updating {{StrongBadEmailInfo}}) may not be taken care of right away. To that end I would like to propose a Weekly Checklist Sign up Sheet whose purpose is solely to track whether or not one or more users verified that each item in the checklist (except for Strong Bad Email Statistics) was updated. This doesn't mean that the user has to update the list. The signature only means that all the items have been "checked off". This would ensure that at least one pair of eyes went methodically through the list making sure no stone was left unturned. Currently, we have no way of knowing if a person actually went through the checklist, or was just trying to remember some steps from memory. I know some people may think is might be too much, but given how complex some of these lists can be, it is soon becoming a necessity. I welcome your opinions. --Stux 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have something in the works to help with the Strong Bad Email checklist. — It's dot com 20:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Committee

I have an idea. You probably guessed it from the heading, but I'm starting to feel the need for a committee dedicated to cleaning up the wiki. The various cleanup projects, namely HRWiki:Article Cleanup, which deals with featured articles, have fallen into relative obscurity or the hands of only a few users. The cleanup committee would be similar in concept to the validation committee, but would focus on spelling, grammatical errors, and correct page format. It would also strive to boost the level of clarity and compellingness of our articles. It would also be more organized and hopefully encourage more users to participate in making our fair HRWiki a better and more fun place to be. Does this sound like a good concept at least? -Brightstar Shiner 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is the responsibility of every active user to cleanup the wiki, therefore having such a committee would be like having a userbox saying "this user edits hrwiki"... — Defender1031*Talk 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't shoot me down right away. I know every user is supposed to cleanup the wiki, but the majority don't really pay attention to articles that aren't the newest sbemail or character or what-have-you. What I'm suggesting is a much larger version of Article Cleanup, one that spanned the whole wiki and concentrated on spiffing up what we already have to make it even better. -Brightstar Shiner 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User space edits

Since most userspace edits are nothing more than updating personal info or adding userboxes, is it possible to make a setting that gives users the option to not see them in recent changes? Just a thought. -- Super Martyo boing! 00:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the first thing anyone else would say (I know I would) would be "What'd stop vandals from using that option while vandalising other people's user pages?", let me postulate this: Supposing the option only appeared for the user whose page was being edited? This is at least theoretically possible, I'm sure. --DorianGray 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

BUT WUT IF THEY SAY NASTY THINGS ABOUT YOU AND YOU TOTALLY MISS THEMS? No, but seriously, what would stop those same users from posting inappropriate material on their own userpage? Bluebry 00:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the original request was for the user looking at Recent Changes to not see the edits to User-space.... not for the user making the edits to opt-out of their edits showing up there. That said, one can choose "User" from the dropdown, hit the invert checkbox, and bookmark that page. (Or, even change the "Recent Changes" link to it with a custom user javascript).

Green Helmet 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update main page

A while back, someone suggested we update the main page to include links to the multi-lingual welcome pages, but the idea, although it did get a lot of noise made about it, ultimately failed. Since we have had the same style of main page for three and half years now, does anyone else think it might be a good idea to redesign the main page just for the sake of having a new main page? -- Super Martyo boing! 01:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, anyone home? --

Super Martyo boing! 04:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have said many times that I think this is a good idea, and have even designed several test pages. Right now, however, I've just got too much on my plate to do anything about it. Feel free to try your hand at it, though. — It's dot com 05:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Violation

See Math Kickers edit history.

Yeah, we don't really have 3RR here. Besides, it's been three reverts, not the four that would be required for a 3RR vio at Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer

14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fatal Error"

Trying to see a previous vandal edit to Coach Z's article, I'm getting this:

**He has occasionally [[Blubb-O's Commercial|attempted to be sent to prison]], since he would be guaranteed "three square meals a day".
**He has occasionally [[Blubb-O's Commercial|attempted to be sent to prison]], since he would be guaranteed "three square meals a day".
**He [[secret recipes|can't afford "money cost]]" ice cream.
**He [[secret recipes|can't afford "money cost]]" ice cream.

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 33554432 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 35 bytes) in /home/hrwiki/public_html/includes/DifferenceEngine.php(1211) : assert code on line 1

I don't exactly get the message, but I think it's trying to ask one of the Administrators to do something ("assert code on line 1"?). I also see the comment "" in the code source. --71.157.173.166 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a vandalized state of the page that was fixed shortly after. I don't actually know what's in there, but something in the code broke the page good. — Defender1031*Talk 03:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was just some dumb ASCII art. Nothing to worry about. I took out the link. — It's dot com 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for Page

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I had no idea where else to go.
(Maybe this is something that needs to be stated a little clearer?)
I think there ought to be a page about 'Phonebooks' on the HRwiki because of its many mentions:
Eg. in the sbemails 'your funeral' and 'the movies'

I would have made it myself, but I was afraid of messing it up and infuriating fellow users.
Anyone down with the idea? --lustmyeyes <3 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to have at least 3 references to be a running gag, so no. — MichaelXX2

05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion category needing attention

To my fellow sysops: We really need to get on cleaning out the deletion category. Things have been sitting in there for months with no discussion. I've done some, but I really would like a little help. Furthermore, as I'm going out of town in a few hours, I may not be able to do much for a bit. If a bunch of us do it, it'll go a lot faster. Heimstern Läufer 09:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did as best i could with DorianGray's help for actual deletions given my inability to delete. I managed to clear off Category:Pages for Discussion and about a third of Category:Articles for Discussion. The rest of them are either lacking consensus and need more opinions, or else are SBCG4AP-related and outside my ability to really judge or even understand consensus. Hope i helped. — Defender1031*Talk 10:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General Toons Checklist

I think that we should have a Generic Toons Checklist similar to the one seen in Talk:Strong Bad Email (albeit shorter). The reason I'm saying this is that little steps such as updating HRWiki:Subtitles/Data have been neglected in the past. While there's no guarantee that the checklist itself won't be neglected, at least we can give some structure to the updates and have a place where we can see a list and make sure we haven't missed anything. Its location would be crucial, and I think Talk:Main Page would be the best place to put it in and it's the place with the most visibility. (The checklist can explicitly point to the correct instuctions when updating Strong Bad Email or Weeklies as well.) What do you guys think? --Stux 13:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for the idea, though I don't necessarily think it should be on the main page talk. HRWiki:Standards, perhaps? — It's dot com 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I could have a section there for the checklist (along with links to other checklists from that page, or maybe even group them there so they're at a centralized location? -- I was thinking turning the most prominent ones into their own templates so they could be pasted in both their original and new locations). I would still like to see something in the main talk page linking to HRWiki:Standards so that people know it's there; perhaps by amending the {{Main Page Talk}} header? I'll start on making the checklist and go from there. --Stux 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki store

The interwiki link needs changing for HRstore:. It is now homestarrunnerstore.com. Thanks! ^{The Gob}^lin!! 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! For my own records: http://homestarrunner.stores.yahoo.net/ → http://www.homestarrunnerstore.com/ (We should note that somewhere in an article.) Hmm. The old Yahoo! icon doesn't seem appropriate anymore for the link. What should we use? (Interestingly, on pages where they forget to declare a favicon, it defaults to the Yahoo! one.) — It's dot com 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could be the sign from Bubs' Concession Stand? Nah, it'd be a little redundant because of {{u|cs}}. Maybe mash the H*R and Yahoo! favicons together? —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss before creating a new page

I'm not sure how it would work, or even whether it's a good idea, but I'd like to float the suggestion that—at least until the current lull is over—no new articles be created without discussion first. (This would apply only to our secondary and tertiary articles—the ones we make to chronicle objects and themes—not toons.) It seems that during the lean times we tend to actively look for articles that can be created, ones that we might not otherwise create. Sometimes this is a good thing; more often, however, it is not. — It's dot com 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually rather like the idea, but there's no real easy way to implement this beyond what we're already doing. Still, we really *are* just scraping for new content... and it's beginning to boil down to random wiki searches for three instances of something that isn't otherwise noteworthy. I... actually may get it for this, but I'm beginning to wonder if the "three appearances" guideline shouldn't be changed somewhat. Three appearances of something in a webtoon that's been running at a rather constant pace for more than a decade really doesn't seem particularly significant anymore, especially given the incredible periods of time between them (one in 2001, one in 2002, and a very vague offhand mention in 2009 that may or may not even be related?). Maybe expand it to five? I don't know. But we're just creating pages for anything and everything these days, not really caring whether it's interesting or particularly relevant; there're many people on the "for" side of these pages whose argument is solely that they're within the technical guidelines. Not an especially compelling reason, really... but I'm getting off topic. I'd like to hear about your idea some more. -YK

01:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that often articles aren't known if they'll be worth having until they develop some content, true, there are cases where you can tell just by the name that, say, "times homestar has said the word 'then'" won't make a good article. I therefore propose a 3 step process. First, a page in the HRWiki namespace where ideas for articles can be discussed. If it's agreed upfront to be a good idea, the article can skip the intermediate steps and be made immediately in the main namespace. The second step for an iffy article that needs time to develop, is to be made as a subpage of the new article discussions page, out of the way of the main namespace, until it is either approved or rejected. The third step is, obviously, if it is approved, it's moved into the main namespace, and if it's rejected, it ends up in deleto city. If we implement this, it might even be a good idea to disable page creation in the main namespace for regular users, and have the "you cannot create pages" message include a link to the new article discussion page, at least at first, so that people get the message. — Defender1031*Talk 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think this is a good idea for the purposes of running gags and inside jokes, I don't want to sit around and wait for one of my tablature pages to clear committee. If we implement this somehow, I don't think we should turn off page creation for normal users (unless someone wants to promote me to temporary sysop, but that seems impractical, and also, I would ideally not be the only one working on tabs). --

Super Martyo boing! 08:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. This idea seems to have died from lack of support, and even I wasn't super gung-ho on it to begin with. — It's dot com 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this discussion. I support the discussion of pages, not as a mandatory requirement for all articles, but as an optional thing. I have a whole bunch of pages I'd like to create, but I'm not sure whether they're good enough. I can't really start a discussion, because there's no centralized place to do that. A simple [[HRWiki:Article Discussions]] page or something of the sort would be good. Gfdgsgxg zgdrc 23:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion categories

We need to clean out Category:Articles for Discussion, Category:Pages for Discussion, and Category:Pages for Speedy Deletion. Some pages have been in those categories for nearly a whole year. Can we please clean them out? Rick Tommy (edits) 07:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to clean out the former, since consensus needs to be reached, and I'm sure that a sysop will get around to the latter eventually. --

Super Martyo boing! 07:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RickyTommy, we keep telling you not to police the wiki because you're overdoing it. Please stop telling people what they should do. I mean it. Loafing

07:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tell anyone what they should do. I was just pointing out those categories and the lack of attention they're getting. Rick Tommy (edits) 07:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misunderstood "We need to clean out..." as saying that we need to clean out these categories. Loafing

07:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe I was a bit rude when I said that, but I'm unable to clean out those categories myself, as some of the articles probably have consensus to delete. ~~PS. Should we make a page like Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion page, and give pages a limited time (like a week, just like at Wikipedia) to be discussed?~~ Never mind, with the lack of users using this Wiki at present, such a page wouldn't work that good. Anyway, should we start cleaning out those categories? Rick Tommy (edits) 06:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And this topic just dies down. I really don't want those articles to stay like that forever. Again, can we please clean the categories out? Rick Tommy (edits) 07:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the category should be cleaned out. It's been eight years!

Gfdgsgxg zgdrc 17:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Almost nine years!

Gfdgsgxg zgdrc 19:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost ten years!

Gfdgsgxg zgdrc 01:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Autosummary for replies?

Could we have an automatic summary for replies on talk pages? Who knows how many countless hours everyone has spent typing "reply" and variations thereof. Considering that that's more of a custom than a standard, I guess it might be a little unnecessary, but if it would be easy to do I'll be your best friend. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. In Dot com's case, he usually puts a general summary of what he said in the description. I usually try to do it too. Really I don't think it's necessary to have it and it would be more of a nuisance than a convenience to have it done automagically. — MichaelXX2

19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the system could reasonably be expected to distinguish between bona-fide replies and other kinds of edits. Even in the most clear-cut case (text is added at the end of a section on a new line; no text is changed or removed; the text begins with one more colon than the previous line and ends with a four tildes for a signature), I still don't think I'd want the system making assumptions. Given how easy it is to navigate to the summary field, type "reply", and submit the form (without even using the mouse), the "countless hours" argument rings hollow for me. Sorry. — It's dot com 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the system DOES automatically put the name of the section in. If you don't make an edit summary, as I'm purposely leaving one out of this particular edit, it's generally assumed anyway to be a reply. I mean, come on, you probably saw this edit and thought it was a reply, right? Right? — Defender1031*Talk 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)