HRWiki:Main Page Talk Archive 20

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Main Page Talk

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)
46 (901-920)
47 (921-940)
48 (941-960)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
uh oh. i think the same thing's happening on the Fanstuff Wiki. (waaah!!!!!!T-T)

Im a bell 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it works for me right now... Trey56 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?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)

[edit] Article Request

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Fair enough. kai lyn 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image request

Could someone please add a picture of Preshy holding a pitchfork to Lack of Visible Arms#Characters With No Visible Arms? I already left a request in about March but no one responded. Bad Bad Guy 15:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's plenty of time to have bought the DVD. — It's dot com 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well if I did I don't have the proper software to put it on anyway. Bad Bad Guy 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not allowed to buy DVDs online. Stop loafing (not that I really think you've done nothing at all) and put the picture on the aticle if you have the DVD. Bad Bad Guy 01:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you're not uploading the picture yourself, then please don't hassle other editors who don't upload the picture either. Thanks. Loafing 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think it's unwise to pester others, I'd agree that such an image would be an asset to the wiki. I know I lack the software to produce that image, otherwise I'd have done so. Perhaps someone is able to. If not, there's little use in repeating the request. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on obtaining such a screenshot. Just as soon as I install this DVD codec. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy 7,000,000!

Happy 7,000,000th visit HRWiki! Happy 7,000,000th! --Stux 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather, seven millionth visit Main Page. The wiki itself has had a grand total of 64,479,265 page views as of just a moment ago. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 07:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-Mail notification

I'm kinda a noob to wikis, so I wanted to ask, is there a way to get notified by e-mail when new toons or sbemails are added to the site?

If there isn't, someone should definately make that...

The closest thing that I'm aware of is this: if you create an account, one of the benefits is that you can put pages in your watchlist and set up your preferences so that the wiki sends you an email whenever those pages are changed.
So, shortly after new updates are added to, somebody on the wiki adds them to Template:whatsnew and H* Updates 2007. If you have added one of those pages to your watchlist and set the "E-mail me when a page I'm watching is changed" option in your preferences, then you'll get an email about as soon as a new toon, sbemail, etc. has been released. That's probably the closest thing to the solution you're looking for.
Hope that helps, Trey56 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Question: Aren't there ways of setting up RSS feeds of this site or --Stux 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Toon!

... *sigh* ... DNA Evidnce...

P.S. This is Tehleet, I just forgot to log in.

[edit] New Sbemail!

[1]--Tehleet 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flash file listing?

I just wondering (grammatical sic) - does anyone know where I can find a list of the H*R flash files? It'd be a lot more convenient than hand-combing the articles to find the flash file URLs...and I kinda wanna have em for a project I'm doing now. If anyone could let me know, I'd greatly appreciate it.· · T2|Things 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not up-to-date, but this should help you: User:Nerd42/ListLoafing 11:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much. My website, the Homestar Runner Navigator, has a function that transfers people to flash files, so I need to know which flash files don't match up with html files.· · T2|Things 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion re:email senders

Would someone remind me where consensus was reached not to include facts about email senders in articles about said emails? It's been referenced a few times, but I don't recall one. Yes, I know there was a discussion at the now-defunct project page HRWiki:Emails from HRWiki Users. However, this was about deleting that page, not removing the facts from articles. So I'm curious where it was decided to remove the facts from the articles. Heimstern Läufer 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that while that page was decided to be deleted, we had no problem in keeping the senders on the respective emails' pages as long as there was indisputable or nearly indisputable evidence to confirm their authorship. Trey56 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem being, of course, that there is very little that would be indisputable evidence. You'll recall the fun we had some time back concocting fake screenshots "proving" how we sent in various classic emails. I actually did one where it was a legitimate screenshot - I just turned my computer's clock back a few years so it looked like it was an old email. If we are adding the senders of emails to the sbemail facts, it's a given that someone will fake their evidence to be listed. It's also inevitable that at some point two people will claim to have sent an email, each with equal evidence. Not listing what cannot be verified absolutely is the only way to maintain the integrity of the knowledge base.
That said, if someone has an email they sent on their user page, and a week later it's the email in the toon, well, then we know. Should we note it then? That's a tougher question for me - my gut still says no, but the sender should note it on the user page for sure. But I can see where others can argue it belongs in the facts. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Tom vouched that there is strong evidence for Cessna Man's claim, and I have seen very convincing evidence for porple's. To clarify, though: my main issue here is: has it already been discussed that these should be removed? Twice today, people have said this is the case. If it hasn't yet been decided through consensus not to include them, we shouldn't be removing them.
On the other hand, there's no reason not to have discussion about removing them at this time if people feel they don't belong on wiki. We do have a pattern of having noted these facts in the past, though, so they shouldn't be removed until consensus is reached to do so. That's all I'm saying. Heimstern Läufer 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If we can adequately verify the claim, then I don't have a problem noting it (for example, my research into PlasticDiverGuy was satisfactory to convince me that his claim was legit). It's interesting trivia, just like most of the other fun facts. And if we're okay with explaining references in the names of senders, then why not point out who they are if they have wiki accounts? — It's dot com 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not OK with explaining references in the names of senders, as we're supposed to be about documenting TBC's work. But opinions differ. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My Opinion: If you're gonna send an e-mail, sign it with your HRWiki username. Then there will be absolutely no dispute, right? Anyway, I agree with Qermaq and It's Dot Com. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That, unfortunately, doesn't solve the problem for people who didn't have accounts here prior to sending the email. — Lapper (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And as Trey and I seem, to me at least, to hold opposing viewpoints, I wonder what precisely you agree with overall. Wish you had said so at first. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Q, it seems you misunderstood the question. This is not about references in the senders' names, this is about whether we should identify the real-world senders of the emails or not. Loafing 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I perfectly understood. IDC (and Trey, who I'm istakenly attributed his comment to) supports including the names of senders provided the proof is nearly "indisputable". I would rather not note senders, and have been rather clear about that. In fact, I recently voiced dissention to what Dot Com said. This is why I'm curious what SMB is agreeing with. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's good to identify the real-world senders of emails, if we know for sure who they are. Their emails have become part of the Homestar Runner universe, and as such, it is only fair that we attribute them. Loafing 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I know this is sort of an odd place to put it but I didn't want to post it on a sysop's talk page and I didn't really know where else to put it. Anyway, Is there a way to find out how many edits you've made without counting in your contributions? --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is such a tool, but the process is so server-intensive that it is only available to sysops. If you wish to know your edit count, you can email myself or another sysop and I'm sure that I or someone else would be happy to let you know. — Lapper (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, I won't bother you, then. Thanks for letting me know, though. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, Super Martyo Brother — there's another way to count your edits, that's only a little more work. If you go to your contributions log (notice that I have edited the limit in the link so that it displays 2000 contributions), you can copy and paste the text from that page into Microsoft Word (other text editors would probably work as well). If you then go to "Tools/Word Count", it will tell you how many lines there are, which is the same as your number of contributions. Hope this helps, Trey56 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted not needed?

Sorry if this is just a dumb question, but what exactly is the point of Special:Wantedpages? It looks like we already have Autoredirect for all those pages. Is that list necessary? — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 20:35, 24 May 2007

It tells what redlinks exist on the wiki. And if something appears there that should have an autopipe, it means that that redlink was there from before the autopipe era. Find the page (it will also have a redlink on the actual page) and click "edit" and then save without changing to make the system re-evaluate the links. This should remove them from that list, as well as removing the red link. — Defender1031*Talk 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Um... now the question is if it's so easy, why isn't anyone taking care of it? <_< — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 20:42, 24 May 2007
Cause we're all working on other stuff and don't really read that page. If you wanna do us all a huge favor and do some of it, feel free. — Defender1031*Talk 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Special:Wantedpages has been obsolete for, like, ever. There really exists no "wanted" page on this relatively small wiki, because if we need an article, we'll create one (and even when we don't need an article, we will create one). Special:Lonelypages is a good tool that can occasionally be used for wiki cleanup, as well as Special:Deadendpages. (A lot of Lonely Pages are TBD, so don't waste too much of your time with linking them in other articles unless they have a fighting chance of being accepted.) —BazookaJoe 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I find it odd that all the pages on Special:Lonelypages have {{tbd}}. Just an observation. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 21:19, 24 May 2007
Yeah, but I just removed two lonely pages that were disambigs before I posted this. It's good to take an occasional look at that. It doesn't have to be done often. It's like HRW:SP. —BazookaJoe 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know we had a page full of common misspellings. I seem to learn something new about this place every day :) — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 21:40, 24 May 2005
Maybe Dot Com can run the bot over that list and have them fixed? — Defender1031*Talk 01:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I've been thinking. In fact, I was mindlessly reading about all the bots on this wiki when I came across The Cheatbot, who is made by It's Dot Com. It was there that I learned that autopipe/autoredirect links even existed, and then I came to question the purpose of the Wantedpages list. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 21:19, 24 May 2007
Right, Special:Wantedpages has been practically useless since even I joined the wiki. Wikipedia has a much better system in place to sort their wanted pages, but they have both the need and manpower to get it accomplised. The need factor is important here. We're a small wiki, so we don't need Special:Wantedpages. —BazookaJoe 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So the list can go? We have the autopipe system to reduce the chance that redlinks will be created, and ones that existed before autopipe should be found by The Cheatbot (right?). Makes sense. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 21:40, 24 May 2007

[edit] The navbox promblem

I've noticed a major stnank with our navigation templates; they are all defined with the ID "navbox". This can create potential problems when there are more than one on a page. How should this go about being rectified?· · T2|Things 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What pages use more than one navigation template? -- Tom 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There aren't many, though any page that could fall under more than one category. Examples are comic and Old Flash Stuff.· · T2|Things 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that what I want is also afflicted.· · T2|Things 00:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Can't we just change the id in each template? It's not that they are actually being used anywhere, no? Am I missing something here? Loafing 00:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure we can. I was hoping there might be another suggestion, as changing them all is a pain. Plus, you have to change the template, not just the page. Which means we would have to change them all. And I don't particularly want to let this drop. I can't stand the sight of incorrect HTML. It bugs me.· · T2|Things 00:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
After some investigation, it appears that this problem cannot be fixed without changing the CSS in each page of the wiki. The ID "navbox" is called by the CSS, which then creates a border around the table. Without that ID, the CSS cannot create that border. Thus, this problem cannot be rectified. At least not without major headaches.· · T2|Things 03:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably the right thing to do would be to change it from id="navbox" to class="navbox", and update the CSS accordingly... phlip TC 03:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That would likely rectify the problem, though keep in mind that we are not in a position to edit the CSS of any page, as it is all contained in a separate style sheet, which would be somewhere on the server that we couldn't edit and replace it. No matter how many solutions there are, as long as all of them involve tampering with CSS, we have to rely on someone with access to the servers (probably Joey, though I don't know if he has the correct access to the servers). Bagh. I despise admitting defeat like this.· · T2|Things 04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? It's right over there... anyone with sysop powers can edit it, we don't need server access... anyway, now that I look at it, the rule is already #navbox, .navbox, so the CSS doesn't need to be changed at all... it'll already work if we change the ids to classes. phlip TC 04:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page creation request

Hi people. Since I don't have much time lately, here is a page I thought should exist: ASCII Art. It can include the e-marlin from dremail, the 1,000,000$ bill from an email I forgot, the ASCII movie from the movies and the Cheatware dist from from work. Please make it pretty, whoever you are. And also please mention that none of these arts can actually be recreated. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comin' right up. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 9:23, 27 May 2007
Thanks dude! Elcool (talk)(contribs) 03:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Short!

Can anyone find the name? Homestar-Winner (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did you discover this?· · T2|Things 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Monday update. – The Chort 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oval on main page. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Not on MY main page. I still have the notice for more armies.· · T2|Things 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, sorry my friend. Try clearing the browser cache and reloading the page. Or buy a new computer without so much old stuff in it. Actually, the first one will be fine. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I cleared my browser cache, yet I still get the notice for more armies. The current day where I live is indeed Monday (memorial day) and the time is around 4:30 PM. Any ideas?· · T2|Things 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, after clearing my cache several more times, it showed up.· · T2|Things 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools