HRWiki talk:Old STUFF

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Rant and Roar

We need to move the "Fun Facts" debate/discussion/voting to the Talk pages of the specific articles. I now realize that this "Stuff" HRWIKI about page pure silliness.

By moving content discussion from the talk page to a common page we are simply no using the Wiki to its potential. If one gets a lack of response from a talk page, go ahead and make the change. BE BOLD.

-That is what the Talk page is for-

It has been said that many contributors will not check the talk page before making a change. Most everyone on the "Stuff" page are old hands. If newbies won't read the how-to why would they go to the "Stuff" page?

The popularity of the "Stuff" page is typical of a sloppy discussion forum and not an article based reference guide.

I think this will be an ongoing problem with this wiki because since the HR universe is finite, most of its content has already been catalogued. Still, many people want to contribute so we are left with an onslaught of "fun facts" and pointless articles on SB's Stool.

What we need is a Clean-Up page. Articles that need to be cleaned up for one reason or another are listed on the Clean-Up Page. This would include merge and redirects, and it could be used to flag pages with "fun fact" debates.

I think due to the nature of the "virus" email it will be a high water mark in the "did you notice that" department.

My 2 cents - [[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] 21:17, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

Yes, that's what the talk page is for, but talk pages aren't organized. Sometimes when a problem gets big enough, a jury-rigged solution becomes less adequate. It's been pointed out that the STUFF page results in much more (and more precise) feedback than the use of talk pages does. In addition, for the first time we're all getting together and working out what makes a good fun fact. These things don't sound like "pure silliness" to me. The same argument can be made with Wikipedia and VfD: talk of deletion could just take place on the Talk page, but if they did it that way, it'd be spread too thin and much less would actually get done. Of course, a counterargument is that Wikipedia is much larger-scale, but I think the argument still applies since this is obviously doing good. As I've noted, by the way, people who wish to be bold can still just post their facts directly; there's just less of a chance that it'll be accepted. By the way, we could still use a clean-up page, but I think it needs to be separated from STUFF because of the potentially high volume. Time will tell... - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 01:02, 23 Nov 2004 (MST)
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but perhaps we should have individual STUFF fun facts on the talk pages of their respective pages under a subsection of their talk pages, and have links to talk pages that have STUFF'd items on this page. --Nerdular Nerdence 01:12, 27 Nov 2004 (MST)
Counterargument: having everything on one STUFF page still makes it easier to maintain. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 04:02, 27 Nov 2004 (MST)
I find it hard to call a 44Kb long page full of decline/delete/accept/keep that no one wants to read through easy to maintain. That's why I recommend this page be used to link to discussion pages for the toons. As long as people actually use it, then this page will link to pages that list fun facts under consideration. If you hadn't noticed, clicking edit on the STUFF page leads to some warning akin to this: "WARNING: Most browsers will barf on this page. It is too long." It really is too long, and will likely only get messier as time goes on. --Nerdular Nerdence 11:14, 27 Nov 2004 (MST)
Have you by any chance seen how long Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is? ;) Yes, I've noticed the warning but I don't consider it important, and it's not true that "most browsers" will barf on the page (especially not the important ones like MSIE, Netscape, and Firefox), just that some browsers will. I don't think it's too long. The important stuff is the votes themselves and there are fewer than one per line on average, and they are in bold, so it is very easy to glance at a fun fact and see how things are going for it. If a few days have passed and there's hardly anything but decline/decline/decline, then it's probably safe to just get rid of it. Speaking of, I decided that fun facts that do get rejected, along with their votes, should probably be moved to the according Talk page. There are a few fun facts with enough declines and enough time to have been voted on to know to get rid of them, so I will. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 04:00, 28 Nov 2004 (MST)
Adding the template {{disputed}} to any article under the "Fun Facts" banner will have the same affect as this unwieldy "Stuff" page. Vfd on Wikipedia is grouped together because only admins can delete and they need to track the results of polls. Admins are not here to "approve" every fun fact: they are here to administrate. The community decides content, and as the style and How-to guide explains, that is what the talk page is for. - Dr Haggis - Talk 21:20, 28 Nov 2004 (MST)
I agree with Dr Haggis on this one. Perhaps this should be a Wiki-decision poll on the Forum? This page is great (I especially love the S.T.U.F.F. acronym) but I really think using a boilerplate that alerts people to the dispute and points them to the talk page would be the most effective solution. JoeyDay (Talk) 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (MST)
Perhaps each article should have a separate STUFF page. Which I guess is similar (if not exactly the same as) the Clean-Up page proposed above. A single STUFF page has become to large and difficult to use. -- tomstiff 08 Apr 2005
  • Second It seems to me that the most user-friendly system would be to have a STUFF tab on the top of each page to have voting just about that page. Theving

[edit] General Comments and Rants

  • I'm glad that we are finally addressing the crap fun fact issue. Whenever one sees the text "this may be a reference to...." it should just be cut. Not even voted on. If we don’t know, its not a fact. Speculate elsewhere.
And we shouldn’t confuse running gags with references. When The Cheat's head blows up, or there is a new game title in the Floppy Disk Container, those are running gags. When Strong Bad overtly mentions the email tape-leg, that’s a reference. When something appears in the background from another toon or email, that is not a "reference". Nor is the reusing of sound effects a "reference". -Drhaggis 16:02, 21 Nov 2004 (MST)
I agree. A true classification system such as the one you present needs to be drawn up. This would help with the problem of internal Homestar Runner references. Do you think something similar would also aide us with external references to real-life things as well? -- Tom 16:30, 21 Nov 2004 (MST)

I totally agree. The reason they use the same backgrounds/items/sounds is because it's easier than making a new one. And also,something should only be considered a pop culture reference if it's an exact quote or almost an exact quote. Isn't it possible that it's just a coincidence they're similar?-Miss Free Country USA

  • When does a funfact become accepted or declined? After x votes? After x voting days? This is a great start, but it lacks structure. I think we have two days of voting. Comments/Suggestions/Did I not read something?-Fuzzy
    • Well, the idea was that the admins decide when something has had enough votes or been up long enough, though it doesn't have to be that way. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 21:19, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)
      • Well, what's the point of voting if the admins decide whether or not the fun fact has had enough votes. They could then say that their one vote is enough to veto 50 other peoples. There needs to be a set procedure, otherwise this whole voting thing is pointless. -Fuzzy
    • Not necessarily. I think the admins can be trusted to use good judgement in deciding whether or not to accept or decline an item. If it turns out that most people don't agree, then we can change that. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 00:56, 23 Nov 2004 (MST)

This comment could be a little bit out of place, but what about just creating a new "Running Gags" heading in emails? So, when The Cheat's head blows up or a new floppy disk appears, rather than it being listed in "Fun Facts," it would be listed in "Running Gags." --oddtodd 00:29, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)

[edit] Starting to get on the wrong foot here...

First off, I'd like to revise the terms used for voting. Rather than "delete/keep", we should use "decline/accept" because we should mostly be voting on new fun facts, which brings me to my next point: already somebody has posted an item for little animal, which is an old e-mail with very few fun facts. I think it'd be preferable to move the disputed item to the Talk page in that case. We don't want to get more bureaucratic than necessary, that is, this page is meant to be here for pages that need it.

Of course, we don't have to do things my way. I'm just communicating my original intent. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 07:22, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

It seems to me that even pages like "virus" could have the fun fact voting on its talk page. -Drhaggis 12:18, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)
I disagree, if disputed fun facts are just put on the Talk page, someone will just put it back with the facts, and then someone else will put it back in Talk, and it will just go back and forth. Unless you mean to set up a voting system in the Talk page. That would be alright, but I think that Select The Usable Fun Facts is better because users will know where to go about disputed fun facts, and if they were just on Talk, they might get overlooked. STUFF seems to be the better system. --Ogog 3:00, 22 Nov. 2004 (GMT)
I agree with Ogog. This has happened to me a few times. You take an irrelevant fun fact off and then 5 minutes later it is back. I have also tried posting to the talk page to try to clear up some irrelevant fun facts, but never got a response (see Talk:Halloween Fairstival). -Fuzzy
The talk page is intended to discuss the merits of article content. I would think a discussion is more likely to be overlooked here, outside article space, than with the article itself. -[[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] 13:07, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)
On the other hand, I believe this is already shown to be wrong because here there is both more breadth and more depth in fun fact discussions than there has ever been. (Discussions over "Yeah, no" don't count.) Clearly stuff's not getting overlooked. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 01:07, 23 Nov 2004 (MST)
I agree that, for the most part, most old articles don't need it. However, with certain disputed facts like the little animal one, it may be necessary, as that fact has been argued up and down for so long that we need SOME sort of consensus on it. --TheNintenGenius 13:53, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

People that will ignore the voting on the Talk page will also ignore the voting on the STUFF page. If they won't read talk page why would they come here? Wikipedia has a 3 revert rule. If edits are going back and forth both parties risk being banned or frozen. - [[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] 16:28, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

I think we should give this a chance. Like I said, NOBODY responded when I posted on the talk page of Halloween Fairstival. I posted on STUFF earlier today and have already had tremendous feedback. Which is strange, because you said that if people wouldn't go to the talk page, they wouldn't come here (yet you yourself have done just that). And, like you said, Wikipedia has a three revert rule. With STUFF, both parties don't have to be banned or frozen, only the party not following the vote. I don't think we should abandon this system after one day. Let's test it and see if it will work. -Fuzzy
I second Fuzzy. STUFF's voting system seems more objective than the flame-wars that can sometimes break out on Talk pages, and a lot of it has to do with the idea of having a predetermined set of votes. However, I am concerned that this page is getting really quite long already, and it's just two emails old. I have already nominated a fun fact that already had been nominated. --oddtodd 00:25, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)

[edit] New Vote Type?

I've noticed a lot of Fun Facts that need to be moved to a different page, specifically about new features of the Lappy 486 mentioned in the animal email. So, I suggest that there be a new vote type: Move. Certain fun facts aren't about the emails themselves, but are sort of a "big picture" type of fact. Any thoughts? --oddtodd 00:19, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)

I'm not sure I can speak for everyone, but I like the idea. --Jay 00:32, 1 Dec 2004 (MST)
I second that. - [[User:furrykef|furrykef (Talk at me)]] 15:50, 2 Dec 2004 (MST)
Second! Move to usable votes. That = That! *Braaap*

[edit] Time Limit?

There are a lot of fun facts which have been open to voting for over a month, and still haven't been resolved. While most of this page is very well organised, the final verdicts are not. I recommend a time limit for voting of a week or two after the fun fact was put up for debate. That way, we can keep the page from getting too cluttered and finally kill off some of the decaying polls put up months ago. --Upsilon

  • It's been a while since the Christmas Lights fun fact went up, and the votes seem about 50-50 in favor of the rewrite (if you count the people who voted for the original wording). So what does this mean? Mister Mister 09:36, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
I still think we need a time limit. Perhaps a week after the fun fact was put up, perhaps a few days after people stopped voting. We can't always count on people agreeing eventually, and if a consensus isn't reached within a reasonable amount of time, the majority should decide. --Upsilon
  • I agree, there's actually a few facts of mine that have been on the page since it first appeared and I'm curious to know if they've been declined or accepted. -- Rebochan 19:33, 27 Dec 2004 (MST)

[edit] Forward Referencing

I'm going through the Strong Bad Emails one by one, checking over them all. I'm finding lots and lots of "forward references" - which is to say, references to things that haven't happened yet. For example, stating in invisibility that "The Tandy line "I can make it on my own" is later used as a line for Li'l Brudder in crying" (which I deleted) is a forward reference. I do not like forward references - for instance, it would be far more appropriate to place that Fun Fact in crying rather than invisibility. Is it just me? Am I being too picky? Or should I add "forward referencing" to "examples of bad 'fun facts'"? (By the way, saying, "this is the first time xxx has happened" doesn't really constitute forward referencing in my eyes if xxx is relatively common later on, like Strong Bad's pronounciation of state abbreviations in depressio.) --Jay 16:52, 16 Dec 2004 (MST)

I don't have a problem with forward referencing (unless it gets as ridiculous and useless as other "Fun Facts" of late). Since the Wiki is the ultimate resource for all things Homestar Runner, some people come to the site specifically to find where certain quotes are reused. Say someone has just watched invisibility, seen the "I can make it on my own," and they know it turns up again somewhere but for whatever reason their blanking on it. With forward referencing, they can find it easily, but without, it's probably going to drive them crazy as they search all the other e-mails one by one. -- FortyTwo
Or they COULD just use the "search" feature... --Jay 17:04, 16 Dec 2004 (MST)
It's real easy to search.
Forward referencing is bogus: Is the 5,000 year old soy food we call "tofu" a reference to The Luau? --beanluc
No, but I would expect to see John Quincy Adams mentioned on a page about John Adams. Earlier emails tend to be less cluttered with fun facts anyway. It seems wrong not to mention flashback on some kinda robot's page. Mister Mister 09:46, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
That's a historical fact, not trivia about a cartoon series. And the biggest difference is, John Adams did not suddenly cease to be the moment that JQA was born. And, to me, it seems wrong TO mention flashback on some kinda robot. --Jay 11:56, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
I'm really not sure what you mean here by "John Adams did not suddenly cease to be", can you please clarify? Mister Mister 04:31, 24 Dec 2004 (MST)
Somewhat poor wording on my part, but I stand by the sentiment. I mean that Adams, Sr. did not die before Adams, Jr. was born. It would be difficult to tell the life story of Adams, Sr. without at least mentioning Adams, Jr., because the two's timelines overlapped. But if someone was writing a biography on George Washington, would they say "George Washington was the great-great-great grandfather of Terrance Washington"? (I made that name up, but you get the point.) Even if Terrance Washington was actually a famous person? No. You could very easily tell the whole story without ever mentioning Terrence. Maybe you could put this information in Terrance's biography, but it would have no place in George's. --Jay 21:25, 28 Dec 2004 (MST)
To be frank, my big problem with forward referencing is that it violates the Once And Only Once rule. Care to disagree with me on this one? --Jay 16:24, 17 Dec 2004 (MST)
I think Once and Only Once is often overapplied, but that's a different discussion. The kind of references we are talking about here are little more than a link and some explanation of why that page relates to this one. I think something on guitar along the lines of "A line very similar to the last line of this song appeared in dragon" is informative and reasonable. Mister Mister 04:28, 24 Dec 2004 (MST)
But what does it have to do with guitar??? --Jay 17:56, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
My goodness. There's a forward reference epidemic these days. It really bothers me, people. Does anyone at all besides beanluc agree with me? --Jay 17:56, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
I know I don't. I find it can be nice to mention how they took aspects from one e-mail and then expanded upon them, for those not in the know. There's not really any NEED to purge the Wiki of links to e-mails that happened later, that kind of goes against the readability aspect of it all. --Shadow Hog 18:21, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
It clutters the pages rather than adding to the readability. I mean, what should we do to japanese cartoon, state that "Stinkoman appears again in (this) and (that) and (this other thing) and (something else) and..." It's easier to only refer backwards, so you only have to mention it once (per page)! And I ask again: what is wrong with the Search feature?! --Jay 18:25, 3 Jan 2005 (MST)
More effort. It's easier to scroll down, see that this idea was expanded upon, think "hmm, I want to know more about this" and click a relevant link than it is to come upon the thought on your own, think "hmm, I want to know more about this" and then do a search for the term and spend time searching through numerous pages to find what it is you're looking for, or to hit Back, look throughout the list of e-mails for the e-mail you think has the pertainent information and look through that. Yes, I'm lazy, I know, I don't care. I know some people out there will be just the same.
That said, it's not that it shouldn't be done period, it's about what the content is. Posting links to everything Stinkoman's been in is better left to Category:Stinkoman Filmography (to borrow from your own example), while mentioning that the VCR blinking 12:00 in stand-up was expanded upon in 12:00 is quite acceptable, IMO. That said, linking should probably be limited to one or two forward references to a specific detail at a time; any more, and it might as well have its own page and that should be linked to instead. --Shadow Hog 19:58, 4 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Who decides?

Awhile back I saw the STUFF page was quickly bloating, so I moved some of the unanimous declined facts to their appropriate Talk page. In the end, who has the authority to approve or decline a fact after X amount of time? I got back from vacation and again the STUFF page is heavily saturated, mostly with "un-fun" or "non-fact" funfacts that should have been deleted immediately instead of simply STUFFed.

In the end, who makes the decision? Kamek 21:54, 28 Dec 2004 (MST)

Exactly what I've been wondering, hence my proposal that the majority decide after a certain amount of time. --Upsilon

I've decided to be bold and archive anything started in November from which a clear outcome could be gathered (all permutations of "accept" combined are not a majority or one permutation has more votes than all others combined). I've moved them to the archive page because that was the first choice shown, and I've put comments on anything I didn't move that was started in November. I also checked/updated the wiki pages for consistency with the result.

I'm proposing that we base the question of whether the fun fact can be added or removed without concluding the voting on the number of votes in favor of a particular outcome, and that we archive en masse for a particular time period (say, every week or so, we archive everything older than 2 or 3 weeks). It's too difficult to determine when a particular fun fact was added to base decisions of what to do about it on that (unless we use the "history" page to look for things added in a certain date range). --MadEwokHerd 18:50, 30 Dec 2004 (MST)

  • sighs* The discussion above says two weeks. I'm going to wait a few days and then, if I don't get any major objections (barring comments about where the archived fun facts should go), I'm going to start checking for facts that were added over 2 weeks ago and archive/comment those. I've just realized that you could simply check the difference between a page from 2 weeks ago and a current page, and compare THAT with a current version. --MadEwokHerd 21:29, 30 Dec 2004 (MST)

[edit] Did our voting system explode?

In the fun fact Quadratic formula, there are 7 votes to accept, 8 to decline, and 2 to modify and accept. This means that there is a majority for keeping it in some form, but the majority cannot agree on WHAT form. Do we use the simple majority system (decline DID get the most votes)? Do we require an actual majority (more than half for any particular side or the fun fact is rejected)? My preferred system is that we start by regarding "modify and accept" as "decline", and see if we can accept it as is. Then we add each particular "modify" suggestion to the "accept" column in order from most to least popular (simultaneously if they have the same number of votes) until we run out and decline the thing or have enough votes to accept with modifications. --MadEwokHerd 16:34, 30 Dec 2004 (MST)

  • I think the simplest option is simply to count each option as a separate choice. Count 7 accepts, 8 declines and 2 modifies, meaning decline wins. Seems simple enough to me. --Upsilon
  • Okay here's my idea. Count up all the votes. Accept is worth two points, Weak Accept is one, Weak Decline is -1, and Decline is -2. Add up all the points and if the result is a positive number then you accept it. If its a negative number you decline it. --mibluvr13 17:16, 25 Mar 2005 (MST)
  • Woah! That's a great idea. --thatkidsam 16:01, 12 Apr 2005 (MDT)
  • I think people are using Weak just to express a personal opinion, not a weight. I know that when i write Weak Decline, I really mean Decline. -- tomstiff 16:07, 12 Apr 2005 (MDT)
  • On the contrary, I think people are using Weak to express a weight. There are many instances by lots of different people that bear this out. When I say Weak Decline, I mean that I'm leaning towards declining but I don't feel strongly about it. If someone came in with an Accept, I think that carries more weight. And you can't just go by the bare numbers—you have to read the comments. I think a brilliant argument in one direction can trump two or three poor arguments in the other direction. Take Bedroom Window as an example (and ignore the off-topic grammar discussion for now). Obviously, people were voting to accept the fact without doing any research. Once you watch the toon, it's clear that the vote should have been unanimous decline. Lastly, a vote to Revise is still a vote to accept the idea, if not the wording. Nobody says Revise and Decline.It's dot com 17:43, 12 Apr 2005 (MDT)
  • I agree with your Revise idea, but I don't think that votes can be counted on someone's opinion of the arguments and often people don't put any sort of argument at all. I think that votes would be more accurately counted if they were translated into numbers. If someone voted for the President for the wrong reasons would their vote count any less? No because one person's wrong reasons could be someone else's right reasons. -- mibluvr13 23:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The whole STUFF system, while it's a good idea, needs some major reform. I think you may be on to something there with the numbers. What if we had some kind of point system, say from -5 to +5, like this:
    • [-3] Decline. I don't think so. --Frat Party
    • [+5] Super Accept. This is a great fact. I cannot believe I did not see it before. --Datalore
    • [+3] Revise and Accept. I think the fact is good, but it should be fixed a little. --StayPuft Marshmallows
    • [-5] BALEETED! Oh, c'mon! There's no way this fact should be in there! --Catbert
    • [-1] Weak Decline. What do you get from a glut of TV? A pain in the neck and an IQ of 3. --Oompa Loompa
We also need some kind of time limit, established from when a fact is posted, so that we can close out some of these old items. — It's dot com 15:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that this point system is a bad idea. I've seen plenty of cases where somebody puts "INFINIATE ACCEPTANCE! I think this fact is cute!" whereas the people Declining the fact actually have good reasons ("Uh, this fact is blatantly incorrect..."). Aurora the Homestar Coder 15:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What do you propose instead? We're going to have to start quantifying these votes somehow. We could reduce it to a simple yes or no vote, but don't you think we would lose some of the flexibility we have now? If we had a point system where you had to stay within a specified range, an INFINITE ACCEPTANCE (+5) could easily be offset by two regular Declines (-3). — It's dot com 15:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We need to keep this simple. Here's a proposal. Any Accept +1 ... any Decline -1. Exceptions. Any revision suggestion is ignored. I've seen STUFFs with all kinds of proposed revisions. How do you know what you're voting for? Vote on the issue at hand ONLY. Open a new vote for a revision. -- tomstiff 15:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Another proposal based on the weighted votes above ... forget the Infintite Acceptance idea. Allow weighted votes from 1 to 5. Vote like this Accept[n] or Decline[n] where n is the weight the user wishes to give to the vote. -- tomstiff 15:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I want to know what's wrong with the simple proposal of +1 for accept and -1 for decline. Really, what's the problem? Aurora the Homestar Coder 15:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. If we were voting, I'd give this an Infinite Second to a Strong Accept. -- tomstiff 16:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean that I thought anyone should ever vote for "Infinite" Acceptance. I actually think we should do away with cutesy votes, like Baleeted, Del Taco, Acceptamundo, and so on. (I'd be sad to see them go, since I think they add character, but sometimes you've gotta make hard decisions.) After some reflection I advocate limiting votes to the following five choices: Decline, Weak Decline, Weak Accept, Accept, and Second. I haven't figured out how I think Revise should fit in. I dunno. This is giving me a headache. There's got to be a way to make this simple and effective. The quest continues... — It's dot com 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • My second proposal (which attempts to be a simplification of earlier proposals) does away with vote labels and seconding. Just vote yea or nay and assign a value from 1 to 5. -- tomstiff 16:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Problem: How are we going to get the general public to start using such a number system? They are used to using a simple accept/decline already, and it will be hard to break their habit. Other than that I think the value idea is a good idea, but not as good as this idea. -- Posted by: -erson Talk 18:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


Tch. I leave the Wiki for a couple of weeks and when I come back, all the Fun Facts at the top of the page look like this:

[edit] Fun Fact Name

Fun facts in STUFF look like this:

[edit] Fun Fact Name

The fun fact.

Perhaps we should put something about STUFF on Standards? --Upsilon

[edit] Wow, jeez

I stop paying attention to the wiki for a while and STUFF degenerates into madness. I'm starting to have severe second thoughts about this whole STUFF thing, since the point of STUFF wasn't to have every single fun fact ever created put up on the page, especially in clumps of two or three. Aiiiggh. --TheNintenGenius 10:49, 10 Jan 2005 (MST)

Yeah, I kinda thought people were always a bit too anal about what goes and doesn't go in the Fun Facts section. I mean, there are some really bad ones (I mean really bad), but then, there are several ones that kind of have merit but get turned down pretty quickly. I don't really get why, outside of the "it causes clutter" argument... --Shadow Hog 17:08, 10 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Could we, maybe, organize by date and archive on the talk pages?

I just read the above discussion, but I wasn't sure if this is really a response to it or not so I've just made this a new section.

Ok, I like the STUFF page and would hate to see it go, mainly because I would have to watch the entire wiki to participate in the discussion that goes on there (aside from fixing random errors). Apparently it's getting to be too big and difficult to manage. I've noticed that entries added to the bottom of the page have gotten little attention. Someone (I think it was Upsilon, but I don't have the discussion page open anymore) suggested a time limit. I've been attempting to enforce that, but it's big and difficult to manage anyway (there's also a lot of stuff there that I can't resolve). I don't think anyone really wants to have to look in the page history to figure out what's old enough to archive (or what's been added recently). So I think new entries should be added to the top of the page, ala Wikipedia:WP:VFD (but without the subpage, that's annoying). Of course, this would also mean no links to specific toon sections..because there wouldn't be any.. So we'd archive on talk pages once things are resolved (which doesn't necessairily always correspond to a time limit, though I still think it would be helpful to have one at least as a guideline..or as the normal rule..).

If actually figuring out when the entries were added is a problem, I could certainly take a specific revision of the real STUFF page, dive into the history, and rearrainge everything into a subpage on my User space or something.. In fact, maybe I'll do that anyway..if I get flamed or something.. --MadEwokHerd 10:50, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Somebody needs to do some clean-up...

I'm seeing a LOT of IP/nameless users casting votes here. Problem is, it's stated right in the intro section that you can't vote unless you're registered and sign... so it looks to me like we have a lot of cleaning up to do here.

I was going to do it, but I can't say as doing it without any warning would've been very polite. So, anyone agree with me, or more importantly, willing to do the deed? I will, if nobody minds me doing it. --Shadow Hog 21:17, 13 Jan 2005 (MST)

It appears the general practice here is to make a reply explaining that the vote must be signed. This makes it clear that it's not countable without actually removing the vote, which would be annoying for people who actually HAD user accounts and forgot to sign properly or log in.. -- 06:39, 14 Jan 2005 (MST) (or, as in my case just now, didn't realize they were logged out) --MadEwokHerd 06:41, 14 Jan 2005 (MST)
Actually, what is says is that "anonymous votes do not count", which I don't think is quite the same as "anonymous users can't vote." If an anonymous user lists a good reason in their "vote" it should probably be left there. Mister Mister 02:38, 17 Jan 2005 (MST)

There's some other clean-up that needs to be done here as well. If there's an issue of an alleged "fun fact" that is clearly neither or is obviously just plain silly, is it wrong to just go ahead and get rid of it? Some of this stuff is just cluttering up and others have been on for months. I had submitted a reference for [virus] - it got a couple accept votes, but then nothing after a while. Finally I went ahead and moved it myself. I was afraid that if I didn't do it, it would get lost in the pile of madness this page has degenerated into. At what point is it OK for us to start trimming down this page so that worthwhile voting can take place? --TheEggman 22:55, 8 Feb 2005 (MST)

Somebody obviously took a lot of time messing around with the code all over the page, it's showing up all htmlish and wiki-codeish everywhere, broken titles there, one bracket here, another 483834 posts that have been spelt wrong, and a gigantic discussion about a friggin 'ping' noise. --RPharazon

The HTML crap was apparently a spam troll and has been reverted. --Jay 00:22, 12 Feb 2005 (MST)
The "Pardack" HTML spam troll is back... --TheEggman 20:55, 18 Feb 2005 (MST)
Dealt with. --Shadow Hog 22:00, 18 Feb 2005 (MST)
Okay, cause I was getting pretty annoyed with that. I tried fixing part of it myself, but it didn't really work... →evin290 08:15, 19 Feb 2005 (MST)

[edit] Joke votes

Can we make joke votes a Wiki-trollable offense? I'm kidding, slightly, but they're getting a little out of hand. As of 2/15/2005, the following joke votes have been included (all of them save one are anonymous, so they don't count, but they still do EXACTLY what STUFF was supposed to prevent: cluttered pages):

  • Eh! Steve - In what was already a worthless fact (a later return of Eh! Steve), a "Revise, Accept" vote was added to make it MORE worthless by mentioning another Eh! Steve appearance.
  • Car? Not no more - The fact refers to SB's mentioning of a car before the car email. The "Accept" vote claimed to know things that the writer could not have known, and determined that SB must have had a car because he dressed up as CARmen twice.
  • Coincidencem - The fact itself is debatable; it refers to the return of a can graphic. But the "Third" vote is clearly a joke vote, as it brings up the fact that "1936 was a long time ago" as if that adds to the validity or lack thereof of said fact.
  • Electrical Tape? - The fact mistakenly equated duct tape with electrical tape and made a shaky assertion. The "Accept" vote is clearly a joke vote, as all it says is "If ever one loved his electrical tape, twas Pom Pom."
  • Losing his touch - The "fact" (about the quality of two emails) was an opinion, and one "Accept" vote mentioned no documented cases of anyone laughing at two emails.
  • Baby Doll Crazy Dance - The fact was incomplete (referred to "an Atari game, but I can't remember which one.) Joke vote said it was "good to go" as it was.
  • Edgar's anachronism - The fact itself, about when viruses were first created vs. Edgarware, is debatable, but the (currently) final vote is not - "Keep the mention of Fred Cohen, cuz he is cool." Ditch the vote, because it's a joke.
  • Computer viruses - The absolute crap fact that shouldn't have been on STUFF in the first place mentioned twelve viruses on the writer's computer. One "Accept" vote with "I didn't know that." litters the otherwise-unanimous declines.
  • Reynold's Wrap - Refers to a product that wasn't even mentioned in the 'toon in question. Olene's vote and subsquent self-second is probably a joke vote in and of itself, and then another (anonymous) vote mentions Reynold the character - which has nothing to do with the fact.
  • Dan vs. Jerome - The fact itself is debatable, but the final "delete" vote only repeats the fact, placing "Strong Bad" in place of "Homestar" (which is CLEARLY false.)
  • Marzipan No-Mouth In Fun Facts - The fact is already in the transcript, which didn't stop a joke voter from stating that the transcript didn't include the words "clearly told".
  • Biscuit Dough Relations - The fact itself is untrue garbage through and through, and yet it has a "Prepetually accept" vote with nonsense as its reasoning, a "how do you know it's not true" acceptance vote (followed by a "how do you know it is?" from yours truly), and a revision that includes every last error that was mentioned in the previous Decline votes and then some.

And I probably missed some. I'm ready to go through and simply delete all these votes on the subject of being anonymous stupidity, but I'll let other people give their opinions first.

And if you don't sign your response, I'll ignore it!!! --Jay 23:20, 15 Feb 2005 (MST)

UPDATE: It seems to be Dingell who is responsible for at least some of the joke votes. --Jay 23:55, 15 Feb 2005 (MST)

Second second second second SECOND. I don't really care if this isn't something to vote on; I agree very strongly. --Shadow Hog 15:17, 16 Feb 2005 (MST)
You agree that it's me, or that the votes should be deleted?? Anyways, do as you will. And Fred Cohen is cool (cooler than Kevin DuBrow at any rate). --Dingell
It's not all you. But I think he was agreeing with the "delete them" sentiment. --Jay 19:56, 16 Feb 2005 (MST)
Yeah, it was removing the joke votes I second, not you in particular. --Shadow Hog 22:47, 16 Feb 2005 (MST)

I agree. It gets really annoying because you can't just disregard the vote because of the obvious sarcasm (unless it's anonymous)

I totally agree - there doesn't seem to be any consensus on just when it's OK to delete this stuff, so sooner or later, someone's got to take action. We need to get rid of these obvious clutter-facts and go through and count votes for ones that really ought to have been decided by now. Certain long ones like the stupid "ping" noise one and the "quadratic formula" one should be moved to their respective Talk pages for further discussion if it's unclear whether they're accepted or not. Let's clear the way for things to move on here. The longer these useless ones stay up, the more they incite people to add more useless ones to the page. --TheEggman 09:23, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)

I went through and moved to archive those fun facts that had been either unanimously declined or overwhelmingly declined. It doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but anything is better than the way it was before. --TheEggman 10:55, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)
One issue: Often cluttered in those jokes in a vote. People have a right to their oppinion, so you must respect it (even in a single "accpept" vote in otherwise unanimous declines). It's unjust to delete the enitre post just because they decided to add a joke. I say you delete the joke part of the vote, but keep the actual vote intact. If necessary, write something like "so-and-so voted Accept, however their vote was removed because it consituded a joke. *sign here*". But you have to keep the bare "accept" or "decline" vote to keep things just. -- Posted by: -erson Talk 18:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Which is utterly meaningless - the joke votes (which I haven't seen much of recently) were almost all unsigned and didn't count anyway, so they were just wasting space. --Jay (Talk) 18:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "This is the first time that..."

I agree with the consensus that the "When *something* happens, this is the first time that *whatever is referenced*" fun facts should not be going on any of the toons or e-mails pages, but what about adding something about them to the character's bio page? For example, a mention of a certain character having parents should not go on the page for the toon where it occurs but rather on the character's bio page. This may be covered elsewhere, but I also might just be off my rocker - anyone agree or disagree? --TheEggman 09:35, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)

  • I'm a little unclear on your wording. The first time something is referenced? That's really silly, I concur (especially since "first references" to SB's parents have been various - don't ask me for the logic there). The first time something happens? That's something else entirely. --Jay 12:48, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)
    • Sorry - should be more like "When _____ happens in the toon, this is the first time it is referenced that ____ has/does/says _____." My point is that these particular references shouldn't clutter the individual toon pages but should rather go on the bio pages for the character/item/place/etc. --TheEggman 15:49, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)
      • ... I'm sorry, I'm still unclear on your exact meaning. --Jay 16:56, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)
        • Oy... OK, examples:
"When Strong Bad talks about his 'poopaw' this is one of the few times there is a reference to Strong Bad having parents..." (actual proposed Fun Fact for secret recipe) - this shouldn't go on the Secret Recipe page, but rather (should it be at all note-worthy) a mention should go in Strong Bad's bio page, something to the effect of: "Strong Bad mentions his 'poopaw' in Secret Recipe."
"This email implies that Homestar Runner has an email address, which we have no reason to believe because he is always using Strong Bad's computer." (from credit card) - this shouldn't go on Credit Card's page (if it's even accepted as being factual), but rather something should go on Homestar's bio page, such as: "In Credit Card, it's revealed that Homestar has an e-mail address."
I find it very interesting that after your comment here:
  • When [insert scene here], this is one of the few references to any of the characters having any parents.
    • Decline every last case Not necessary; the parents of various characters are referred to multiple times (the Bros. Strong, Pom-Pom, and even Marzipan (even though the last one was later changed.)) Similarly, any instance of "This is the first time Strong Sad has smiled/laughed/burped/sighed/whatevered" is not only silly but, these days, wrong. --Jay're finding what I'm trying to say so confusing. Though like I said, I could be completely off my rocker and this entire line of discussion totally unnecessary. --TheEggman 21:21, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)
Uh, if that's the case I have to say... no. I don't agree. If they don't belong in the Trivia section of the toons in question, I don't see how they belong in the character pages any better. And what confused me was your wording. It was difficult to parse your sentences to mean the first time ANYTHING happens, or the first time that something is INFERRED to happen, or the first time that something is MENTIONED... in which case, it belongs only if it's relevant and correct (the problem with the parents line and the Strong Sad line is that neither is correct in any case but one, but people keep adding them. For instance, in radio, people kept trying to add that it was the first time SS had smiled, which is patently not true - and only barely relevant.) --Jay 21:44, 17 Feb 2005 (MST)

[edit] Fun Facts

I have something about the categories in Fun Facts and I couldn't think of anywhere to put this. I think that all pages with a ton of fun facts need to be divided into categories and, because this order is what usually appears on pages with the categories, this should be the order:
Inside References
Real-World References

This is what it seems to be on most of the pages. This will make it look a lot cleaner and have the fun facts easier to find. Any objections? →evin290 08:42, 19 Feb 2005 (MST)

As the one who was responsible for splitting the sbemails and a few other 'toons - and, in fact, coming up with the categories - you know I'm for it. I've noticed FireBird splitting some of the main toons, though he didn't always keep to that exact order. (I've been off-and-on busy with real-world stuff meself, which is why I haven't joined in the fun.) BTW, hope you don't mind that I formatted your post. --Jay 16:49, 22 Feb 2005 (MST)

[edit] Where the Cheat is at?

Sorry about the "Where the cheat is at?" dealie. I must have started editing before the title was changed and posted it afterward. Sorry for the confusion →evin290 15:11, 22 Feb 2005 (MST)

You aren't the one who changed it, so it's not your fault by any means. (Unless that IP addy was you. In which case, eh, whatever, it's cool now.) --Shadow Hog 15:19, 22 Feb 2005 (MST)
Nope that poisson isn't me.

[edit] Archive or Talk?

I just noticed a fair number of the STUFF items that I had Verdict'd and summarized and moved to appropriate Talk pages were just recently moved to the STUFF Archive page... complete with full discussion, even though the discussion was not included on the STUFF page once I summarized it. I'm loathe to revert either of these pages (though I may revert the Archive page, since the discussions are repeated unnecessarily now) but I think we need to come up with a definitive consensus as to what happens to Declined STUFF items. --TheEggman 08:04, 27 Feb 2005 (MST)

[edit] contest the removal

These were on the STUFF page and declined. If you wish to contest the removal of any of
these, post a comment here (make sure it won't be confused with any of the original votes).

Does this mean we can vote for declined fun facts? --Trogga 12:07, 10 Mar 2005 (MST)

  • I don't think that's the intended result, rather that if someone has a problem with it, post a comment and discussion can begin again on that Fun Fact - think of it as an appeal to a guilty verdict. --TheEggman 14:19, 10 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Removing Summarized Items/Verdicts

The page is once more becoming bloated. Unless anyone has objections, I will begin removing items that have been closed and moved to their respective Talk pages and/or Archive sections (in the case of Declined items) from February on back. Items that were accepted will be placed in the Archive section so that in case an Accepted item is STUFF'd again, the verdict will still be viewable. --TheEggman 23:21, 14 Mar 2005 (MST)

I like that idea. --Trogga 13:16, 20 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Headline text

I'm sorry about my added fun fact. I forgot. Especially what it even was, please tell me.--oopsyoubwokeit 05:05, 2 Apr 2005 (MST)

[edit] Oh boy...

I'm starting to get Edit Conflicts on this page. --Gafaddict 16:13, 12 Apr 2005 (MDT)

Do you mean on this talk page or the article itself? Ima test both. --THE PAPER 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind, it works now. --Gafaddict 15:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Edit conflicts show up when someone has gotten ahead of you in editing the page. One time when it happens is when someone adds another item (a toon heading and/or another fun fact) above yours, which then pushes the ID numbers of all the headings below it up by one. Another time is if you are working on the full page and someone else pops in a smaller edit (or the whole page) before you. It's a pain to have to resolve, especially on a page this big, but that's why it happens. --TheEggman 03:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No TOC

Why is there no Table of Contents on the STUFF page? Itg would be soo much easier to naviguate the page with one.---erson 16:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fun Fact Confirmation Committee (FFCC)

There are soo many incorrect fun facts out there that I think we need a committee divoted to removing said facts. Just by looking arround the random pages makes me want to hurl a brick through my screen. And, once these facts are removed someone just resertes them. Not only that, but people are removing fun facts that are perfectly acceptible. Its annoying! Even the Stuff page doesnt work well. Thus, I propose this committie to have power over what facts stay and what goes. They are given a protocol, and if a fact passes the protocol than committie confirms the fun fact (perhaps by typing confirmed and signing) and removing/stufing fun fact (maybe put "rejected/stuffed by FFCC" in the comment section) so that way some one has a final word on these fun facts. What does everyone think?

      • I agree, in garage sale, coach Z originally said, "OH, so I'm okay then", rather than "OH, so I'm okay to say it"(this was changed within a couple of days). When I added this, it was deleted, and the guy who did still wouldn't respond to what I posted on his disscussion page about it. On the other hand, there are many that seem to be opinions that no one deletes. I still don't see how the "Ilko becoming a train" easter egg in "cheat day" was a final fantasy reference(It porbably isn't), yet no one deletes it, and if I do it will likely get reverted. --AnarchyBalsac

-- Posted by: -erson Talk 18:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • No one?-- Posted by: -erson Talk 22:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For a different reason, we've seen something like this before - some guy took initiative to give little "gold stars" to facts he liked. Unfortunately, this proved to be EXTREMELY arbitrary - he'd give gold stars to facts that weren't that great at all, while facts similar to his starred ones would go unstarred. Plus, it just feels like your solution gives unfair power to non-sysops. And most new users would add the bad facts anyway, if they could. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't believe there IS any good solution other than keeping a close eye on the pages and revert, revert, revert.
BTW, the reason that other user had "gold stars" was that the Fun Facts were generally accepted to be too cluttered (this was before we started splitting them into subcategories.) --Jay 03:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But this would be a committie of multiple people with expreience on fun fact and the Stuff page. JoeyDay likes the Idea -- Posted by: -erson Talk 23:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We already have a FFCC: It's the entire H*R Wiki community. Facts are added by the community and deleted by the community. Facts in dispute get STUFFed by the community and are accepted or rejected by the community. I admit that the STUFF process may need a little work, but all-in-all I don't think we need a separate committee. -- tomstiff 13:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem with that though is that people just add things without fully confirming them. At least the FFCC will be composed of multiple people divoted to keeping the fun facts accurate and clean, while folowwing a protocol to ensure correctness. It would be much more edicated than just the communittee itself.-- Posted by: -erson Talk 18:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the crap happened?

I'm looking at the previous versions of STUFF, and a LOT has been removed by The Real Zajac. Did someone comission him to do this, or is he just trolling? --acekirby13 19:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC) Okay, so he's not trolling. However, is the new page formatted well enough? (I was gonna lobby for one, but I think his really needs to be re-formatted). --acekirby13 19:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

No I'm not Trolling, just doing some heavy cleaning. But please, by all means I think a format for the over STUFF'd page is a good idea. All I did was just drop it in. And no, this was entirely my idea. I got tired of waiting for "someone else" to clean up our beloved STUFF page so I did it myself. -- The Real Zajac 15:11, 2 May 2005 (PDT)

[edit] I don't think we need STUFF anymore

STUFF isn't reliable and I think has out lived any usefulness it may have had. I'm all for following what Drhaggis has been saying all along. That is, useing the talk pages for what they are for. We should be discussing the content of articles there, not here with this "voting" system. -- Tom 01:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It has been overrun, getting cluttered, and just not useful anymore. Let's stick to the talk pages. →FireBird
Hear, hear. I may not be famous here, but I think this system just dilutes people's minds with mob psycology. The Somewhat Awesome Jesty 01:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. . . .it would seem that the STUFF page was being hijacked into a forum. -- The Real Zajac 16:33, 2 May 2005 (PDT)

I agree! Let's stuff STUFF! «Rob» 11:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite tired of seeing every other edit on Recent Changes being STUFF. Let's trash this- soon. →FireBird
We have the ability to hide certain edits—minor ones and so on. Could we make it so that STUFF edits could be hidden as well? — It's dot com 18:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree you guys. It is taking up way too much space. It doesn't seem that important to keep it. What sort of system will we use if this stuff is back on the talk pages? How will the ultimate decisions be made if there's no voting? →evin290 16:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
We'll still vote- just not in one huge page. If no one cares too much about a fun fact to not vote for it, I'm sure you'll be albe to just delete it. →FireBird
I agree. STUFF is dulling the senses. It makes people not want to edit if they have a slightly wrong fun fact, because with STUFF, it will most likely be put up for all to see (note my fiasco with Bumdumbourge and Totalslava). It's much easier on people to see facts deleted outright- it makes people more bold to do things without fear of ridicule. And that's my two cents. --acekirby13|My Talk 20:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The STUFF page is way too long, as well. «Rob» 07:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Having a central STUFF page is vital to the success of keeping track of fun facts. In particular:

  1. If the votes were moved to their respective talk pages, I strongly believe that few users—even the more savvy ones—would be able to scour the recent changes page enough to keep up with what facts were being voted on and where, especially considering that facts on the STUFF page aren't limited to just the newest H*R updates.
  2. On the other hand, a central STUFF location lets a user check just one page and make several votes on different facts at the same time.
  3. A casual voter can check the page as little as once a week and still remain current and influential. Which is what we want in a wiki—the more input, the better.
  4. A side effect of the page is that it makes it easy to get to know the personalities in our community.

With that in mind, however, I'm not saying the STUFF page couldn't use reform. Yes, it's long. Yes, it's disorganized. And yes, it could use some formatting improvements, but that's because it's still relatively young. It's experiencing growing pains. With a little effort, I believe these things can be fixed over time. — It's dot com 18:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How's about moving the possible fun facts and votes to the talk pages but keep the STUFF page up as a way of linking to each of these places seperately and displaying verdicts when they're finished? --Tehngion 00:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I just want something that'd help prevent duplicate sections (when there's an island section down below, AND the newest STUFF'd fact creates a new island section up top). --Shadow Hog 04:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting old fun facts

Why are there so many old, already voted fun facts on this page? It's just bloating up the page. We should remove any fun facts that has been verdicted more than a week ago. --Gafaddict 19:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Users voting more than once?

I know we went over this once before, but I'm starting to think that the same guy we suspended for voting more than once using different usernames is doing it again. --ISlayedTheKerrek 03:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Ya, I'm seeing that a whole lot!


[edit] STUFF reform

Hey, everybody. I've got a page I'd like you to check out. User:It's dot com/STUFF reform. It took me a long time to create it, and I would value your input. (You can use the talk page there.) Thanks. — It's dot com 05:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Scratch previous comment; it IS templated. It's just a really big template. Well, it looks okay to me other than the size of the coding block... but I suppose that's a little unavoidable... --Jay (Talk) 08:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and is there some reason why you didn't link to my name whenever I popped up in the examples? :p --Jay (Talk) 08:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Apparently special sigs don't work with the tables. Did the same to me. Thunderbird 00:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Whoa! Nice work there. At least this gets rid of those petty little arguments. :) --SBEmail22 09:40, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

[edit] This is a Headline

I love STUFF. I love to debate, give my opinion, and actually have a say in something's fate! As a matter of fact, a critic or lawyer might be my "Plan B" for a career! STUFF is great practice. The page is getting mighty obese, though. A couple of headlines up, there was a suggestion about deleting already-verdicted fun facts after a week or so. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE! IT WOULD CUT DOWN ON STUFF'S PAGE LENGTH BY AT LEAST 1/3! (YES I HAVE TO YELL!) Cheatachu72

[edit] TOC

Who the heck decided to take down the table of contents? THIS THING IS HUGE! We need one! --VolatileChemical 19:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because the TOC is huge, too. It counts not just every cartoon in question, but every fact being debated, too, making the list REAAAALLLY long; even on my huge 1280x1024 screen size, it takes a while to scroll past it. --Shadow Hog 19:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Call me a noob, but is it possible to simply list all of the cartoons on a TOC without going to each disputed fact? Besides, I dnno about you but even if the TOC were huge, clicking on it would be a heck of a lot easier than scrolling and trying to find it. -- Tony Stony 19:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's no way that I know of to remove specific headlines from the TOC, it's either all or none. We could make the headers for the individual facts just bold text, then they wouldn't be in the TOC, but then there wouldn't be an [edit] link for it, you'd have to edit the whole toon. Just use the Search button in the browser (Fx's search rocks! Just type "/Senorial Day" and there you are!) --phlip TC 04:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think I has the solution!. But we should create a template for it, like...
<h4><span 'return false;'>{{{title}}}</span></h4>

... so we just have to type (if we call the template "====") {{====|title=You said doyng again!}}. I think that would work. «Rob» 00:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't even need the <span 'return false;'> thing (I don't even know what that's meant to mean...) - just using <h4> instead of ==== does the trick. Good find! It does mean we lose the edit section links though... --phlip TC 06:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what it means either, all I did was look on the page's source code, and copied the subheading and surrounding text. I thought that the "<span 'return false;'>" might have been needed (I didn't really know what I was doing). «Rob»

[edit] Take it Down, Sniper Man!

The page is now ceased from voting, to make way for the new version, right? Then why do we still show these facts as up for grabs? From what I see, the page is still open for edits. I say either wrap up the voting and delete the page, or freeze it and prevent editing. It's an old, heartless dinosaur with issues...a relic of the Homestar Runner Wiki Cold War. People insulted each other on this page, for crying out loud. Kill it. It's a defacing of the very thing a wiki is supposed to be - a collaborative reference, not a volley of vicous insults.

Um...Maybe you didn't see the big, bold, gold notice at the top. The one that reads: "This page is preserved here as an archive. The votes are not active. Please see HRWiki:STUFF for active votes." All of the votes on this old page were converted to the new format over two months ago. Those votes have all since concluded. This page is kept here for historical purposes. It lets us see where we've been, how we've changed, and how we've grown. — It's dot com 23:27, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools