HRWiki:Main Page Talk Archive 2

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Main Page Talk
Archive

1 (1-20)
2 (21-40)
3 (41-60)
4 (61-80)
5 (81-100)
6 (101-120)
7 (121-140)
8 (141-160)
9 (161-180)
10 (181-200)
11 (201-220)
12 (221-240)
13 (241-260)
14 (261-280)
15 (281-300)
16 (301-320)
17 (321-340)
18 (341-360)
19 (361-380)
20 (381-400)
21 (401-420)
22 (421-440)
23 (441-460)

24 (461-480)
25 (481-500)
26 (501-520)
27 (521-540)
28 (541-560)
29 (561-580)
30 (581-600)
31 (601-620)
32 (621-640)
33 (641-660)
34 (661-680)
35 (681-700)
36 (701-720)
37 (721-740)
38 (741-760)
39 (761-780)
40 (781-800)
41 (801-820)
42 (821-840)
43 (841-860)
44 (861-880)
45 (881-900)


Contents

[edit] Hello

What is a wiki, this is crazy, can someone like tell me what to do, i look at HR weekly, anyone got any new updates

One thing is we use correct grammar. Which includes correct capitolization and punctuation. To find out about this "crazy place", read up at the HRWiki:About page, or ask up any questions in the Help Desk. (Oh, and for updates, there's a little thing called homestarrunner.com where there's this thing in the corner. It usually has updates, if I'm not mistaking. :) ) But anyways, a wiki is very easy to use if you know how, which you will learn at the HRWiki:About page. Trust me. You'll love it here if you decide to stick around.?FireBird

[edit] Gr8 Job!

You guys do a great job at keeping troublemakers from ruining this site.

If someone would have asked me about the concept of Wiki before I saw it in action, I probably would have been very skeptical that trasher control would be effective.

Boy was I wrong.

Thanks FortyTwo and all you great detrollers out there!

Wow, A shoutout! *sniff* I'm touched... Thanks! --FortyTwo 19:53, 28 Dec 2004 (MST)

[edit] Link to forum

Hey, do you think there should be a link to the forum on the main page? I do. What do you people think? --arrow4.PNG~Rebecca~ RJMT speaker-noise.gif 03:14, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It is, in a way. See the menu on the left side of the page. —BazookaJoe 03:18, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Every thing is fine now

um what happened the last 3-4 days? i could not get on the wiki --djm1791 05:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bandwidth ran out. It's been discussed. Everything is fine. Nothing is ruined. Crystallina 05:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

but what does that mean & were can i find this discosion? --djm1791 05:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bottom of this page, for one. Crystallina 05:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks --djm1791 05:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a character reference for the Strong brothers' mother? I know we never see her, but she does seem to be around somewhere since they refer to her (as in the SB email, "the facts).

[edit] What the crap?

Why am I not on the list of registered users? --Upsilon

You're number 439. -- Tom 11:42, 30 Dec 2004 (MST)

Why am I not on the list of registered users?--bkmlb

You're number 1879. -- Tom 20:55, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004/2005 Tsunami Donation Link

I was just reading up on the Indian Ocean Earthquake and realized how incredibly horrible this event was, and I'm seriously thinking we need some kind of banner to a donation link to the Wikipedia donation page. Or something like that. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

How very specific your request is. -Fhq

Fhq, what's your point? It's a good idea, don't give him crap because he's thinking larger than himself. Bird, perhaps you should send Joey a PM on the forum. -- AgentSeethroo

Just in case anyone was wondering, we won't be adding a notice to the Main Page. If you'd like to put a notice on your userpage, that would be acceptable. -- Tom 20:14, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Dubious reference solution

Over the past few Strongbad e-mail articles, I've read a lot of (to be frank) farfetched suggestions of references that TBCs are presumably making to other stuff. Maybe, if you're 100% sure that something is intended as a reference (for example, a character name or line very specific to one TV show), then it's fine to say it's a reference. But if something just seems to remind you of something else (for example, a song that sounds kinda-sorta like a song that was played in the 23rd episode of some TV series), then it's more accurate to say that it is reminiscent of something, rather than a reference to something.

Just a suggestion.

A wonderful suggestion, and it goes along with the ongoing discussion we are having regarding the overhaul of our current fun fact system. Thank you for your concern and idea. -- Tom 14:52, 13 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Locking down the main page

I visited today and noticed that the main page had been defaced. Someone else restored the last known good version, but it seems to me that the front page should not be editable by just anyone for this exact reason. Even the main page of Wikipedia is off-limits to anyone except staff...

Yes, I want the main page protected as well... -woddfellow2|? 14:05, 14 Jan 2005 (MST)

-It happened again. This must be done NOW.

Look, the template does nothing to prevent trolling; it's a redundancy. Locking down the Main Page is a good way to go, since nothing really changes there, anyway. -- FortyTwo 14:26, 14 Jan 2005 (MST)

I find it funny how the MediaWiki's been around for at least 5 months now and only NOW are people starting to complain about wanting the Main Page locked down. Personally, I think it's prime idiot bait, as in "if you deface the main page, you're automatically not fit to be on the wiki." --TheNintenGenius 15:02, 14 Jan 2005 (MST)

You could have a way to detect whether someone is severely defaceing the page or not. --67.161.224.65

Okay, due to several requests and the seeming lack of need to update the Main Page, I've protected it. Please note that I do not like having it protected, this being a wiki and all, but I agree that it really doesn't need to be edited that much and is just sitting there as troll fodder. Thanks to all who helped with that last batch of defacement. -- Tom 19:12, 14 Jan 2005 (MST)
I never change the main page, so I'm pretty happy with that, but I do have one concern. Might the Trollers who automatically go to work on the Main Page to start with, now be forced to move onto smaller, harder to detect defacements on other pages? What if we're only spreading the diease? [[User:Thunderbird L17|?Thunderbird?]] 18:46, 17 Jan 2005 (MST)
A good concern, and lucky for me I have this wonderful ditty to cite:
...the fact is that for every troll with too much spare time, there are 100 users with just as much spare time ready and eager to undo that troll's (un)work. The fact is, the trolls always get bored before the users do, because the users are emotionally invested in what they've created and the Wiki moves fast enough that the average trolling only lasts about two minutes before it's reverted. A troll's work is hardly ever noticed by anybody, but a legitimate user's work is always noticed and appreciated. That's why wikis work. — InterruptorJones 15:37, 17 Jan 2005 (MST) (ref)
Simply put, that's just how wikis work. We'll notice no matter where or how small, and they will get tired. -- Tom 18:55, 17 Jan 2005 (MST)
That is, unless said troll or trolls are emotionally invested in destroying the wiki. --Guest
Good answer, thanks. Come to think of it, I guess if everyone has on their watchlist the pages they created, or just care for, then likely whatever page is edited will be watched by SOMEBODY. Thanks for the quick reply. [[User:Thunderbird L17|?Thunderbird?]] 17:36, 19 Jan 2005 (MST)

Well, I want to edit the main page. I have a feature in mind that I think would be appreciated by all (I know I'll use it), but would require a little updating every now and again. How about you just make the main page editable by registered members? Disallow guests from editing it. I await the unlocking to reveal my idea. --Rgb9000

If it's such a great idea, why can't you just say it? Aurora the Homestar Coder 00:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair question. I want to do the actual edit so that I'll be properly credited in the history for the implementation. --Rgb9000 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a Wiki, so you can't really take credit beyond putting on your userpage that you were the one to do something. Aurora the Homestar Coder 01:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it making a link to the newest (H*R) updates on the main page (to the pages of the updates themselves, not to the updates page)? Because that would be quite nice. (but would require updating every week or so). -- 82.81.whatever

[edit] Rejects?

Where did Rejects go?? What the? -- Asploder

Away. — InterruptorJones[[]] 23:57, 5 Feb 2005 (MST)
Yes, they're all categorised now, but I don't know where they went. woddfellow2|? 18:08, 14 Feb 2005 (MST)

They all went to better places. Characters are now characters, items are now classified as items. Fancy that ;) - Dr Haggis - Talk 21:48, 27 Feb 2005 (MST)

[edit] Confusion over moving dates

The Main Page says that HRWiki will be moving 'from early Friday morning (Feb. 25) to late Sunday evening (Feb. 27)', but every other page says 'early Friday morning (Mar. 4) to late Sunday evening (Mar. 6)'. Someone should probably fix that on the main page, as it appears it's not closed presently. -- Mithent 05:04, 26 Feb 2005 (MST)

The date changed. A hard refresh (likely ctrl+F5) of the Main Page should clear your cache and solve the problem. -- Tom 21:16, 27 Feb 2005 (MST)

[edit] New

Hi, I'm new and not on the list.--mailman8 09:19, 1 Mar 2005 (MST)

Yes you are, you're number 895 →evin290 09:50, 1 Mar 2005 (MST)

what number am i?--Harry 10:03, 1 Mar 2005 (MST)

Here, find out for yourself. -- AgentSeethroo 10:46, 1 Mar 2005 (MST)

Thanks--mailman8 11:10, 1 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Favorite Character List

It think it might be nice if some o' you guys set up a "Most Popular Character" page to find out who are the most popular main characters in the Homestar Runner universe. There seems to be enough wiki users here to get an accurate idea. In this page, people would say who their favorite character is on the talk section (and their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc favorite as well if they want.) and then someone would add them all up into a graph to show who are the most/least popular character and so on. (And remember, MAIN characters only) To keep things simple, it could be a character would get 8 "popularity points" for being a first favorite, 7 for second, 6 for third, and so on. Whoever gets the highest popularity points goes in the most favorite section. Also, only registered users count. I dunno... this could be difficult and messy and inaccuriate, but if done right it could be very interesting. Anyways... opinions anyone? --Joshua 15:46, 7 Mar 2005 (MST)

Sorry, but this here's a vote for no. I think it could be a good idea under a different venu, such as the Fanstuff Wiki, or perhaps a poll in the Forum. But since this is simply a knowledge base, it wouldn't really fit in too well.

[[User:Thunderbird L17|?Thunderbird?]] 16:37, 7 Mar 2005 (MST)

I agree with Thunderbird. It's just not necessary. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
What if it was made in Fanstuff Wiki? Don't care too much if it never happens. Besides, I wouldn't have the know-how and stuff to make a page like that anyway. Someone else would have had to do it. --Joshua 17:09, 7 Mar 2005 (MST)
Yeah, that'd be awesome. Run with it. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
I went and I ran with it. You can check it out in the Interactive section of Fanstuff H*R Wiki. :) It's called, "Character Popularity"--Joshua 16:47, 9 Mar 2005 (MST)

We all Know That SB is gonna be most poplular, or Maybe Pom Pom. After all, He is the most Mackinest.User:Goblin Hammer

[edit] Article of the day?

Why not have a featured article like Wikipedia?

We don't have any featured articles, so we couldn't have a featured article of the day. -- Tom 09:49, 22 Mar 2005 (MST)
We could do it like the Fark.com Wiki does it. Each month has 7 articles (one for each day of the week) that rotate around every week (with a new set every month). For instance, you create a page called HRWiki:Featured article/Tuesday, March then just do an include on the main page like:

== Featured article ==
{{HRWiki:Featured article/{{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTMONTH}}}}

That would run automatically for a whole month with only 7 articles. --noclip 18:53, 22 Mar 2005 (MST)

The fact remains that we still don't have featured articles. -- Tom 13:05, 23 Mar 2005 (MST)
You don't need to "have" them. You can just make em. Start a poll of which articles should be on the front page, take those and copy-paste them into HRWiki:Featured article/Whatever day and use that link on the front page.

[edit] New logo

How about it?

Image:hrwlogoidea-fixed.png

noclip 18:59, 22 Mar 2005 (MST)

I had this alternate too

Image:hrlogowithhr.png

noclip 19:26, 22 Mar 2005 (MST)

I like the one with the dropshadow, but would be happy with either of them... Glutnix 03:03, 23 Mar 2005 (MST)

I've started a "Poll" about this

Sorry, but we don't do polls. I've deleted your poll page accordingly. -- Tom 14:02, 26 Mar 2005 (MST)
JoeyDay told me to start one. It was just to see whether the users were for it. He said it was okay and that the decision would be left up to the admins anyway. It'd have been nice if you protected the page and posted the results instead of straight up deleting it.
Well, if it matters, I really don't like the green "Wiki". Another color would look nice.
And Homestar Runner looks a little bit bumpy. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
I would have used another color but TBC pretty much used everything on the logo.
Just because it's been used once doesn't mean you can't use it again. Orange or grey would look nice (I think). →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
The first one looks great. I don't know about the green, but it looks better than the current logo. «Rob»
The first one is perfect. --Joshua 18:10, 28 Mar 2005 (MST)
I love them both! Actiually, contrary to what these folks are saying, I like the green (probably because it's my favourite colour... xD). But I agree that Homestar looks bumpy. The first ones real nice, though.
On second thought, the green looks nice, actually. «Rob»
I think that the first one is incredible! Nice work! I love the green! →evin290 14:32, 2 Apr 2005 (MST)
I Think the second one should be used. I prefer it over the one that's up now. And I also like the green "wiki". That logo looks really, really nice. But as for the first one... I don't know, the drop shadow just doesn't look H*Rish, and it's good to see H*R (the character) on the logo. In conclusion... the second one. --70.25.9.49 01:52, 7 Apr 2005 (MDT)
Have you seen the H*R loading screen? It's got the drop shadow.
Yeah, but the logo in the loading screen is round, and I think the shadow isn't quite as dark. With the "Wiki" in there, the shadow looks like it should be more complex, but then it would be too realistic. Well, that's how I feel about it.
Though I am leaning toward the second logo, I like the first one almost as much (the green isn't a problem to me). Both logos are pretty good. Nice job. --acekirby13 16:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not to be a picky monkey, but they look a tad bit jaggy...do ya think you could smooth it out a bit, especially the one with Homestar on it? - AgentSeethroo 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh my gosh that rocks out loud I love the green it fits so well. I love it love it love it. For cerial. (does that count as "internet slang"?)--Because, It's Midnite

I like it. Dropshadow. ?Thunderbird? 01:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Dropshadow! Kvb 15:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a member but I go on this site all the time and you can't stop me from giving my opinion so... I VOTE DROPSHADOW! -Alice

I love the first one. The green is cool, but maybe a more basic color might apease some members such as black or white? I dunno though I am horrible at graphic design. --Tony Stony 00:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The second one is better in my opinion. Homestar adds some flavor to it. Rabidfox

Its' AWESOME! Homestar does add flava, but Blue would be better color than green in the wiki part. Goblin hammer

[edit] Scared of 1.4.0

I'm scared of this upgrading to 1.4.0
I didn't like what it did to the fanstuff. Because...
1. Different font. It's smaller and I don't like it as much.
2. History erased. I expecially do not want that to happen. Not to mention it could leave some page histery blank, making them targets for non-revertable trolling.
So, what I'm trying to say, is that if you can't get past these two problems, I think I'd prefer this wiki staying in the 1.3's. --Joshua 18:37, 29 Mar 2005 (MST)

I ran an upgrade to 1.4 a week ago on a pretty big wiki (~200 articles), it went seamlessly. The main page was defaulted, but that was easily reversible through history. Other than that, it shouldn't mess anything up. My thoughts, go ahead and do the upgrade.
Well, look at what happened to Fanstuff Wiki. Almost all history was erased, the font is smaller and uploading pictures doesn't work. --Joshua 06:20, 31 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Character Evolution, The Stick

I posted the first of my suggestions on the discussion page for the FAQ, which of course was not the right place. If it doesn't make any sense what I am about to say, maybe how I worded it there does.

[edit] Suggestion #1: Character Evolution

In the Character Evolution pages, we should not treat the Yello Dello and Reddest Radish versions as designs. We shouldn't even include them on the page (perhaps in a sub-section "Other ways so-and-so has been drawn") because these were NEVER solid designs, they were never intended to be and simply aren't. The designs themselves are valid when talking about the Reddest Radish but they are still not necessary for the page.


[edit] Suggestion #2: The Stick

I believe that the Stick should not be treated as an Inside Joke, but rather as a full-fledged 'place.' I think it's earned that title, don't you?


Ok, so everyone leave your thoughts, comment or whatever here. I hope to get these suggestions used.

EDIT: I also believe that fhqwhgads should return to beign an inside joke.

  • I agree with all three of those. Reddest Radish and Yello Dello aren't real designs. --thatkidsam 15:41, 11 Apr 2005 (MDT)
  • I wholeheartedly agwee. Fhqwhgads get your birdie carcus into the da inside joke place, and the Stick, be a place, I guess. 64.12.116.195 00:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing issues

For some reason, I can't edit the WikiTroll page. In fact, I can't even edit its talk page! I'm not banned (I can edit other pages just fine.) Every time I try to edit those pages, though, it informs me that I'm trying to edit a page that's just been edited - even though there's no new edit on the Recent Changes page or anywhere else. I was trying to add 160.7.1.12, a repeat offender who defaced long pants and Strong Bad Email. Can anyone else edit the WikiTroll page? --Jay 10:31, 6 Apr 2005 (MDT)

It's a result of the move to MediaWiki 1.4. Lots of people are having problems editing certain pages, including the WikiTroll Archive, Strong Bad's Room Main Page, japanese cartoon, and most importantly WikiTroll and Talk:WikiTroll. For more information, go to HRWiki Talk:Upgrade to MediaWiki 1.4 --videlectrix.pngENUSY discussionitem_icon.gif user.gifmail_icon.gif, 17:39, 6 Apr 2005 (BST)
I too had the same problems editing the WikiTroll and WikiTroll Talk pages, which I posted on the HRWiki Talk:Upgrade to MediaWiki 1.4. Annoying, yes? Aurora the Homestar Coder 12:48, 6 Apr 2005 (MDT)
I know I'm not the only one annoyed by a lack of WikiTroll page. Perhaps we should set up a temporary replacement? --Jay 14:06, 7 Apr 2005 (MDT)
That sounds like a great idea, since we've had a frustrating number of repeat trolls recently, like that guy who keeps changing the pictures around. We could call it "Temporary WikiTroll". Aurora the Homestar Coder 15:06, 7 Apr 2005 (MDT)
I called it WikiTroll 2.0. Too bad I can't edit the main page or the old WikiTroll page to link to it. Sigh. --Jay 18:45, 7 Apr 2005 (MDT)
Great jorb! Aurora the Homestar Coder 19:15, 7 Apr 2005 (MDT)
Now if only a mod would put it in an easily-accessible spot... or acknowledge its existence... --Jay 23:12, 8 Apr 2005 (MDT)
So, have none of the mods noticed the WikiTroll problem? Hasn't anyone noticed that the Wiki Troll page hasn't updated since the move? Aurora the Homestar Coder 04:14, 9 Apr 2005 (MDT)

[edit] Watchlist is acting a little strange...

The watchlist is looking a bit weird - what happened? Was the database restored from a backup or something?

(1 pages watched not counting talk pages; 120000 total pages edited
since cutoff; checking watched pages for recent edits... show and
edit complete list.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are the last 2 changes in last 3 days. 
Show last 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 hours 1 | 3 | 7 days all 
14 Apr 2005
(diff) (hist) . . HRWiki talk:Upgrade to MediaWiki 1.4; 23:21 . .
12.2.235.67 (Talk) (?Creating a New Account) 
3 Apr 2005
(diff) (hist) . . N HRWiki:Upgrade to MediaWiki 1.4; 11:04 . . Tom
(Talk) (Add stuff.)

--Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 13:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing 120000 total pages edited too. You're the first one to notice, but I'm guessing this happens for most/all of users. Looks like my hope that our problems since upgrading were all fixed has been dashed. -- Tom 15:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thing is, this didn't happen at the same time as any of the changes (at least not that I know of). Although, the most obvious culprit is the time zone change, but the problem didn't occur until a while after that happened.
I just noticed that the total pages edited field is always 40000*days - so if you select 6 hours (0.25 days), it shows 10000. I'd like to know where that figure comes from... but I'd need file and database access to verify, and that would probably be a little too much to ask :) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've just seen it as well. --videlectrix.pngENUSY discussionitem_icon.gif user.gifmail_icon.gif, 16:36, 20 April 2005 (BST)
Same here -- Posted by: -erson Talk 23:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This happened to me too. --acekirby13 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pidgeot, if you have any specific queries you need me to run, just ask. I'm all about getting to the bottom of this. -- Tom 16:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I need to examine things close up for me to try and determine anything - I have a number of ideas, but testing any of them is an extensive process, and it would be much easier to do this myself.
Could you possibly supply me with a MySQL database dump and a copy of your MediaWiki installation (in case you have files that for some reason are different from a standard MediaWiki 1.4 installation), so I can work on it remotely? I can supply you with a variety of methods of getting the files to me - FTP, a GMail account to send to, etc. (You can e-mail me if you want to discuss it more privately - just click the (e) in my sig.) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 17:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I just tried that (e), but it looks like our User email function isn't working for some reason. The link in the toolbox doesn't show up on user pages either. Anyway, send me an email at tom@hrwiki.org and we'll talk. Thanks. -- Tom 17:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks to Pidgeot's help. For more information, see MediaWiki bug 1778. -- Tom 16:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring the Main Page

How would people feel about having the main page refactored to be more like Wikipedia? I think we've got enough content that we could highlight a different article each week and keep a rolling "did you know" list. I also like Wikipedia's category links at the top of the main page. What does everyone think? — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 22:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggested this too up in "Article of the Day?" on this page. I fully support it.
I don't think out category system is set up to be navigated like Wikipedia's is. Additionally, running the "Article of the whatever" would be a full-time job. We'd also need someone to come up with a system. The idea sounds nice, but how would you do it? Remember, the english language Wikipedia has 550 times as many legitimate content articles and 165 times as many registered users as we do. -- Tom 17:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I don't think we have enough content to run an article of the day, but I wouldn't mind being in charge of a weekly or monthly featured article. It might be nice to set up a page where users could nominate articles to be featured, just to give me ideas. I also wouldn't mind scouting the wiki for strange facts to post in a "did you know" section. In fact, I think that would be fun. In short, I'm willing to do it if people want to see it done. In regard to categories, we could simply use our current Toons, Strong Bad Email, etc. pages instead of pointing to the categories themselves. An "in the news" section (though probably called something else) would also be useful for a quick glance at the most recent toons/emails.
As a corollary to this, we would probably want to move specifically wiki-related content off the front page and onto some sort of community portal page. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 18:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've created a mock-up of my main page idea. Not much different from Wikipedia's main page, but I figure what works for them should work just as well for us. I would of course build a bunch of templates to include most of the content. This is just a start. I don't want to spend too much more time on it unless more people want to see it happen. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 20:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm fully for this new Main Page. It looks great! I think we will be able to have a new article everyweek and everything. «Rob» 01:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although the new features are cool, I don't like how it makes the original list of pages less accessable. Much less accessable. -- Joshua 01:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the "Browse" or any of that other stuff on there- one reason I really like this wiki is because it's so simple. Browse and all that other stuff make it sort of confusing. To me, anyways. →FireBird
The mock up looks nice, but there are still some things I don't think we need. You solved my category issue very well, but like Firebird mentioned, those links in the "Browse" line there are a bit cumbersome, and I can't actually picture someone using them. I think they work for Wikipedia simply because Wikipedia has a lot of subjects. We don't. How would our Browse page look?
Joshua makes another good point. Quite a few of the article links were left out. This might be because they would end up somewhere else in the new system, but I like having links for things like Marzipan's Answering Machine on there.
Now that I've seen more of the proposal, I'm liking the idea of featured something of the something, and the idea of a "What's new" section on the front page, but I'm not feeling good about the "Did you know?" section. That would be a job and a half for someone to manage.
Oh, I noticed for Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" link you went to our :About page. I kind of like the newer Introduction guide that Wikipedia set up back in December. I'd be willing to set that up for us.
Oh, and the portal is a great idea too. -- Tom 16:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have laid out a preliminary Categorization scheme on my User Page for use in the new main page navigation This represents all of the top-level categories. Comments are welcome. - Dr Haggis - Talk 17:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've also created a Introduction mock-up. -- Tom 17:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks great Tom. Are we getting a community portal? It would be a great non-forum way to discuss the Wiki. If so it should be called "Meet-up at the Stick" or some such thing - Dr Haggis - Talk 17:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we're seriously considering it, as Joey mentioned it in his mock up and discussion as well. "Meet-up at The Stick" sounds like the right name for it. -- Tom 17:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Call me stupid, but I'm not exactly sure what a community portal is. Can anyone explain it to me? →FireBird
Wikipdia has their Commnuity Portal you could check out. Basically, they don't have a forum and use the wiki itself for discusion of wiki-related topics. -- Tom 17:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, man! Both mock-ups are fantastic! I really hope that they'll be used. »ßenit, known as señor«

[edit] Interviews/Presentations

Since we're now starting to make pages for genuine interviews of, and presentations by TBC, what about actually putting them somewhere, besides just 'sightings'. I figure that since they're put out BY TBC, and not more or less fanstuff, they should get their own section linked to from the main page, under Wiki Stuff, maybe as 'Interviews' or something, and then as such, sort out all the websites we have with transcrips of interviews and stuff, and transcribe them, maybe put a few fun facts in there, ect, make them all genuine pages. I think it would really add to the usefulness of the Wiki. Any ideas? If the sysops (EDIT: Hey, That's Me!) are up to adding to the main page, I volunteer to personally spearhead, to an extent, (I'll have much more spare time as of May the 1st), this undertaking, along with transcribing, ect. Plus many of the interviews are already transcribed on the pages we're linked to, our transcriptions could just edit for typos, maybe censor a word or two, but be useful incase these pages are ever shut down, the interviews lost forever. Okay, any comments/suggestions? ?Thunderbird? 01:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Tom 01:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools