HRWiki:Main Page Talk Archive 23: Difference between revisions

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

Latest revision as of 21:00, 18 July 2026

Is there an update to homestarrunner.com?
If so, please add it to the updates page. If you're not sure how to do that, then just post a note on this page, and we'll take care of the rest. Thanks!

decline in use

Has anyone else noticed that the wiki is declining in use? The talk pages on the emails aren't nearly as big as they used to be. Infact, i checked a good sampling of emails and the number of times accessed on the talk pages, and back around the 100-130 range they were 6-7 thousand views, but the last 10 or 15 have been only 2-3 thousand. Please don't try and say that there are 3-5 thousand people viewing the talk pages 6 months or a year after they're out. Any idea whats going on? -Jdhannan 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting question. We did have that baby break this summer, and it's possible we still haven't really gotten back up to the level we held before (It's dot com has suggested this idea to me a few times on IRC). Other than that, we may be just be going through a slow period for other reasons I can't think of. Interestingly, this past email rush has been one of the biggest I can remember, with lots of talk page discussion and even a STUFF frenzy. So, who knows what will happen next. Anyway, there's my thoughts; others may have more ideas. Heimstern Läufer

17:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Homestar Runner's popularity has been going downhill ever since the Trogdor-Peasant's Quest pinnacle (2003-2005). HRWiki seems to have peaked in early 2006. I think it's because nothing new has taken the world by storm as much as Trogdor did, so people are slowly losing interest as they move on to different things. Entertainment shows can't hold many people's attention forever. Power Rangers, Rugrats, Spongebob... you know what I mean. —BazookaJoe 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki font

Why does the Wiki use a different font from that of Wikipedia? 124.180.248.253 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because this is not Wikipedia. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Our not being a Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. The font we use, Verdana, was especially designed for computer monitors to be readable at small sizes and is widely considered to be one of the best fonts for online use. — It's dot com 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Singularized pluralizations

Soo... that's not a very good title for such a page, and i can't think of a good one, but i think we should have a page on such a thing. examples; "it sold like hotcake" and "the '74s was the prime of my dating year" I'm sure there are other times that something usually pluralized is said in singular. Anyone have a good idea for a name? — Defender1031*Talk 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Deliberately Poor English? - Qermaq - (^T/C)

15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not actually poor english, it's more that it's commonly said in plural but here they're talking in singular... by the dna evidence, there was only one, and coach z is implying that he only dated in one year. Not poor english, just sad people... — Defender1031*Talk 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how that doesn't qualify as deliberately poor english -Jdhannan 04:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I understand DeFender's argument in that the examples he gave are not grammatically incorrect (almost), which is what I'd consider, at first, to constitute poor english (the first setence I think should've read "it sold like a hotcake" to be 100% grammatically correct -- someone please correct me if i'm wrong). However, poor english can also constitute english that is stylistically bad, like mine, like Strong Bad's. Therefore, I think it is withing the scope of Deliberately Poor English to list such examples. --Stux 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's a different joke than poor english. It's clearly its own type of running gag. — Defender1031*Talk 13:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DeFender; it's a particular kind of joke, not merely poor English. I also agree with him that "singularized pluralizations" is not a very good commando name. — It's dot com 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, again i ask, what WOULD be a good commando name? — Defender1031*Talk 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Firebert! Ahem.. the question is a difficult one. Unpluralized plurals ?

OptimisticFool 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we go to the trouble to think of one, do we have a third example for the running gag? — It's dot com 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Redesign of Main Page for Welcome Page Project

It was suggested by Trey56 on Category_talk:International_welcome_pages that a discussion about changing the front page layout is needed, so I figured I get the ball rolling. With the new international welcome pages coming together, they will have to be linked on the front page. To me, the logical place to place the links in a single line between the Main Menu navigation and the Browse/What's New boxes, perhaps with a yellow box around it. I believe Sysrq868 was dummying out some different possible configurations.

My feeling is the multilingual links should be easy to find, especially for those that are interested but not the strongest English skills, but at the same time be aware that the main page is already pretty crowded. Any thoughts about this process? wbwolf (t | ed) 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be done at some point or another. We can set up a mock up at someone's userpage, for experimenting with. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided to try out a few different layouts using Sysrq868's suggestions:

Single line, yellow box
Single line, green box ver 1
Single line, green box ver 2
Larger yellow box, at the bottom
Larger yellow box, at the top The only way I got this version to work is with the extra space between the subtitle box and the Browse/What's New boxes.

What do you think, sirs? wbwolf (t | ed) 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done! I think I'm preferring the single line boxes. And what about putting them right at the top? Like so:

Single line, at the very top

This way, it doesn't break the flow of the current page. Obviously, we'd have to fix that huge linebreak under the box ;-) Loafing

01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I think I like it at the very top better. The main problem I found with the putting the languages navbar under the Main Menu line was the fonts would have to be adjusted, since it overpowered the small caps of Main Menu. (and no, I don't mind if others try out different configurations on my mock up) wbwolf (t | ed) 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fix the line break like this? wbwolf (t | ed) 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesomeness. How about making it even shorter? like this. Loafing

01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few of mine, a lot simpler...

^{The Gob}^lin!!

01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Of those, I think I like the one up with the Main Menu the best. The other layouts tend to get lost in the overall page. Having said that, I kinda like having a box or something to draw the eye quickly to that section. Perhaps using the Small caps format, but having a box around languages? Something like this? Again, the issue is spacing; I couldn't draw the box around just the second line with space between, nor can I eliminate the extra line underneath. wbwolf (t | ed) 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We want the international links to catch the eye of people who need to see them, but they shouldn't have undue salience over the English-language elements of the page. This is, after all, an English site. Thus we look for the balance. I think the links under the featured article or under the what's new box are too subtle, but I think a big yellow banner at the top is too much. My suggestion is that we should go outside the box and overhaul the main page completely. We've had this overall design for a while, and its probably due for a makeover. — It's dot com 15:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! Maybe we should have that done... ^{The Gob}^lin!!

03:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And here it is. If we want, we could probably alter it more, in terms of graphics. I was only looking for the layout right now, with a little bit of coloring. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it, although I think it looks a bit... chaotic. The yellow box at the top seems maybe a bit too big. I really like that bar on the right though. —Guard Duck ^talk 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine on IE, but it's completely broken on Firefox. At this stage, it doesn't make sense to make it work for every browser, of course, but maybe it helps if designers say which browser one should use to watch their suggestions in full glory ;-) Loafing

05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine on IE, Safari. I see what you mean about FF, though. I don't know what to do about that, though. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

05:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start, but it puts way too much emphasis on the top yellow box, and has too much vacant space. The most important thing on the main page is the what's new box (and the what's new picture), so any proposed redesign needs to take that into account. — It's dot com 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So, I totally missed this one, but I'll say my opinions that I think might matter to whoever will do this Main Page redux. Firstly, I think that if we are going for somekind of a box for the welcome links, it should match with the colors of the welcoming pages: #FC0 border, #FFFFCC background. Secondly, I really do think it should be a box, to sort of seperate it from the other, English content. On no account should a foreign user need to scroll for the international links, and they should not "sink in". In fact, looking at that menu version, it took me about 6 seconds to find the links, I don't know where my eyes should focus. Remember, the international users that stumble across this website do not expect these links, and thus they should be very visible for people unaware. In short: No scrolling, no sinking, no linking. But that last one's not so widely enforced. --Sysrq868 09:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I took Techgeekmbg's suggested layout and made few changes. I like the side bar, but I flipped the What's New and Featured Articles sections. I then shameless stole Wikipedia's front navigation. The result is this layout. Colors and font sizes could be adjusted, but does offer having the languages available immediately without being overpowering. Any ideas? wbwolf (t | ed) 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Further refinement: debolding languages and giving them a yellow background, per Sysrq868's suggestion. wbwolf (t | ed) 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to redesign the whole main page. We should just make one little box that will hardly make the main page look different at all. Homestar-Winner (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the code and modified it to make the Featured Article and What's New side by side. here. For a reason I don't know, the two titles do not line up perfectly. And all of the layouts with that "Features sidebar are all messed up on Firefox. Sigh. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my new version. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

18:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could just have something like that subtitle box that's on toon articles. --Trogga 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like a sidebar box? That would still require the user to scroll. And I bet no-one would like it to be placed high enough that scrolling wouldn't be necessary. --Sysrq868 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the latest three column design, Tech, but my main concern would be the order. I dunno, but I think that the "What's New" should be on right edge, and the Features column would work better on the left. Though, I find It's Dot Com's latest effort impressive. wbwolf (t | ed) 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are my attempts at a different layout. Ignore the fact that there's no color yet. Browse the recent history for some variations. Comments welcome on the talk page. — It's dot com 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the layout, but if you guys want to change it, change it. For a version that doesn't drastically change anything, here is my version. --

Super Martyo boing! 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For a minimal change, I think that's the best one so far, but the front page hasn't had a significant change since May 2005, so it's overdue for a major refresh. wbwolf (t | ed) 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got a variation of mine, with 2 columns, vuewable here. It still has some obvious bugs, though. I'm working on them, but if someone could help me, thanks will be given. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the error, I was missing a </div>. link. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

02:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

TechGeek: I like it a lot. Only critique I have is I'd prefer the languages to slide under the Welcome snippet. But it's your design. --

Super Martyo boing! 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Of the lot, I prefer Dot Coms clean and orderly approach, and I don't really like any of the others, seeing as they're really, really messy and make us look like a bunch of...well, inexperienced Wiki-ers. If Dot Coms one was more colourful, then I might even like it to be the new main page, but in reality, I prefer just having the first green bar on the current page.--~ SlipStream 03:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just remember, colors aren't important right now. I like Dot Com's layout, except for one thing: the title iembedded into the page. I think the title should be alone, so it is emphasized. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Archives

Could someone teach me how to archive pages like Talk:Jibblies 2, or are sysops the only members allowed to create archives? Bad Bad Guy 20:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You do not need to be a sysop. Create a page with a title patterned after existing archives. Copy the content from the talk page to the archive page - do it from the edit mode so you carry all formatting. Then remove that content from the talk page and add a link to the archive, and the archive should link to the talk page too. Be sure you do not move any active discussion to the archive page. I think that's about it, if not someone will add. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think that Jibblies 2 needs to be archived. Homestar-Winner (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay too — especially since it's such a new toon. Many of the discussions are probably still pertinent.

Trey56 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we archive it now? How many messages should each page contain? Bad Bad Guy 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually around twenty, but we still really don't have a need to. You'll notice this talk is archived because it has over 450 topics. I honestly don't think it's out of hand at all. — Lapper (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the only real reason to archive a page is if it's not only long but we also think it's going to get substantially longer in the future. Now that the toon is no longer the newest kid on the block, it's not likely to see as much activity. Plus, the talk page is longish, but it's not that long. I don't think requiring an extra click to see the older topics does much good in this case. — It's dot com 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article Template vs New Template

I think we should create a template for a merged article rather then putting a deleted page template if it's been merged. See Talk:The Dapper Swindler. Sam the Man 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea — I changed {{deletedtalk}} so that it can serve both purposes — hopefully it'll be more versatile now.

Trey56 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we used a separate category for merged pages versus deleted ones or not? It seems there is a greater number of merges compared to deletions so that set of pages will grow faster. --Stux 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's a need to create separate categories. This would be consistent with the consolidation of the {{tbd}}, {{merge}}, etc. and templates and corresponding categories into {{talktobediscussed}} and Category:Articles for Discussion. Perhaps the category could be more aptly named, though.

Trey56 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything Else Easter Eggs

So we have 1 less section stub to deal with when a wiki member gets Everything Else 3 and confirms which toons have commentaries, could someone give me instructions on how to unlock the Easter Eggs on Everything Else, Volume 1? Bad Bad Guy 04:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade

So, what does this baby do now? Sam the Man 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You can find everything by just clicking on that link at the top of the page. Homestar-Winner (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Holiday Changes

Here's my idea: You know for Halloween, we redo the wiki and change the logo and backround. Well, I was thinking for Holidays such as Valentines Day, St. Patrick's Day and Decemberween (Also Christmas), we could the exact same thing with a different theme. What do you think? Sam the Man 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past, we've done this for Christmas/Decemberween, and I'd guess we'll likely do it again. For other holidays, though, it would be overkill. Heimstern Läufer

23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki facts

I think we should get rid of any facts that mention something about this wiki (like on Fat Bluebird). Anyone else think so? Homestar-Winner (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, in the few cases where we mention the wiki, it's only because TBC themselves did. It makes sense to. — Defender1031*Talk 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about Field Day Intro? I never thought we needed that fact. Homestar-Winner (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and removed that. — Defender1031*Talk 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My Baby Got Stole

They just removed the Bear-Holding-a-Shark hoddie! Is that worth mentioning in the "recent updates"?

No, we typically only add additions and new stuff. Removals happen all the time, and aren't ever mentioned. --DorianGray 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Login Successful: Now a HRWiki Template

Umm... when I log in, I get:

You are now logged into the Homestar Runner Wiki as "Bluebry".

Return to Main Page.

Category: HRWiki Templates

So... is this supposed to happen, or, am I just insanely cool? Bluebry 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Loginsuccess apparently has {{recentchangesnotice}} embedded. It seems that the <noinclude> tag is not obeyed. I think moving the category tag to the talk page and clearing the page should do the trick. --Stux 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop being cute: I Need Help With an Image

We've seen normal bushes in normal The Field, nighttime The Field, and autumn The Field. I think it's clear the round bushes are not coming back soon. (I'm personally indifferent to the change) Could someone with a decompiler help remove the characters and props from this picture so it could be properly displayed on The Field's article? Bad Bad Guy 19:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Meh, I had a nice decompiler on my old computer. I'll redownload it and see what I can do. Bluebry 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)~~

Sorry, I can't find my good old trusty old decompiler on the web. Bluebry 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't decompile a JPG. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think BBG means decompile the scene from the Flash file, Qermaq. Which is what I tried. Yay. Bluebry 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Search Problems on Main Page

When I got on the site I noticed that instead of Go or Search it said <input type='submit' name="go" class="searchButton" id="searchGoButton". Is this happening to everyone or just me?--ONESTOP 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably just you. It looks fine to me. Does refreshing help? —BazookaJoe 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Scroll Button Mirrors

If that problem I pointed out earlier with mirrors of Scroll Button Songs from 2006-2007 is truly unexplainable and unfixable, will we eventually have a mirror of Strong Bad singing a song about the Zappy's buttons to the Lappy, or would it be fixed by then? Bad Bad Guy 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I get that you're talking about this question (although a link would have been nice so I didn't have to search for it). Two things: it's not unexplainable, and it's not unfixable. As for the rest of your question, I have no idea what you're talking about. — It's dot com 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Will mirrors we make in the future of Scroll Button Songs Strong Bad sings to his next computer still show the Lappy? Bad Bad Guy 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If the cause is not unexplainable, could you explain it to me? I'm still confused. Bad Bad Guy 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dot com already said "The problem is the XML file that controls the list isn't being updated. I know how to fix it." An explanation, and an assertion that it can be fixed. Heimstern Läufer

18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Swears

On any censored versions of Interviews, there is a part that says {{Interview's name|swear=***}}. Where do you put where all the words that you consider swears? Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Censoring. Basically, in the uncensored version, swears are marked as {{{swear|naughty word}}}. This makes them appear as the specified number of asterisks in the censored version. — Has Matt? (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Twin Peaks

I can't write an article about it since I never watched the show, but I did find 5 references:

Marzipan's Log Lady costume from 3 Times Halloween Funjob
Strong Sad's Lament: One of the "tunes" is Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me Soundtrack
The eyeball pear Easter Egg in alternate universe
The Stink's Reach Easter Egg in underlings.
The music from DNA Evidence.
This would probably make a good image. Bad Bad Guy 16:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree — we could use an article about this.

Trey56 16:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and start it, even if it's not perfect. We'll fix it. This should be an article. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

How do you request to be an administrator? 121.220.75.135 10:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see HRWiki:FAQ#How do I become an admin or sysop?. --DorianGray 10:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These Discussions Need To Close

Talk:Babies
Talk:Bed Axe
Talk:Strong Bad and Bubs' Relationship Somebody seriously needs to figure out the consencuses and close the tbd discussions now. — Bad Bad Guy (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (left unsigned)

Severe drop in SBEmails?

I've noticed that there were only 22 new sbemails in the past year, out of a possibloe 52 weeks of the year. Is it just me, or is the number of SBEmails severely dropping? I dunno. -Ein Poltergeist

It's just you. There were just 24 in 2006 and 28 in 2004, and only 19 in 2005. — It's dot com 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's because of the baby break, and also, not every week is a sbemail. Sometimes, there are shorts, halloween toons, etc. ^{The Gob}^lin!!

21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Though you may be remembering 2002, in which almost every week was a sbemail. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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