Talk:Homestar Runner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Homestar Runner has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 To-do list for Homestar Runner: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
| Priority 1 (top) | |
 |
The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page. |
 Archives |
| through July 2007 |
[edit] Merge
Resolved.Homestar Runner is a notable topic, but this notability doesn't extend to its fictional subtopics. Notability in fiction is defined by the amount of non-trivial information that pertains to the real world that a topic can have (per WP:FICT and WP:WAF). Besides Trogdor, this information is unavailable, and Trogdor's information can be placed into this article fairly easily. The Homestar Runner Wiki is a much better place for the more in-universe information. TTN 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to do the same thing as we did with Pokemon? Maybe just one page with a list of main characters with a brief description? If there isn't, merging to the main page is fine to me. -WarthogDemon 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- It really depends if there is enough information on the characters as a whole or not. I honestly don't see any real potential at all. It's probably just better to have it spread throughout the article (Strong Bad will be split through a possible characters section, the history section, the SBEM section, and possibly a few others, for example). TTN 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I say do it, fewer articles means a stronger topic in this case. 69.253.238.27 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Judgesurreal777 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I'm thinking that the characters Homestar Runner is good enough for his own article; and I'm thinking if we lumped Strong Mad and Strong Sad, there would be enough to keep Strong Bad's article. (I'm not sure about Homestar Runner, but Strong Bad has made at least one "appearance" in puppetform.) Not sure if that'd be sufficient though. -WarthogDemon 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- There really isn't enough real world information on the characters. Anything that talks about the site really only talks about the site in general. If they focus on anything special, it'll likely only be the Strong Bad Emails. The few bits on the characters would be better utilized here. TTN 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- It really depends if there is enough information on the characters as a whole or not. I honestly don't see any real potential at all. It's probably just better to have it spread throughout the article (Strong Bad will be split through a possible characters section, the history section, the SBEM section, and possibly a few others, for example). TTN 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I know the current trend in Wikipedia is the obliteration of articles, but the characters in Homestar Runner are significant enough to at least have their own character page. That and this page is already gigantic. To keep it in a manageable size would require pairing down information to only the most superficial of information, and hurt the topic as a whole. Brevity is a virtue, but not brevity in spite of information. Rebochan 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100%. Also, Strong Keep Legolas1987
- I wouldn't say we're "obliterating" articles. -WarthogDemon 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would lean toward opposing this merge, as I tend to think the characters are notable enough to have articles. More importantly, as it stands, this article is already too long. If we're going to make a merge into it at all, the article itself badly needs to be trimmed down. Until that is done, I firmly oppose any merge. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Notability comes from real world information backed by sources, not personal views. Something notable to one person may not be notable to an other person, so sources have to prove that they are actually notable to a wide spectrum. Nothing is actually going to be merged. A "Characters" section may be added, but that won't add much. I'll probably end up cutting this down anyways. TTN 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- While that is true, how can you even define sources for any of this? Surely you can't say Strong Bad isn't significant - he has his own cartoon series with over 150 episodes! I definitely oppose any merge whatsoever... Now, if the articles were stubs, I would support a merge. However, they aren't. That means that someone found enough information and sources to make a full article. And not everyone knows about HR Wiki... a lot of people expect Wikipedia to provide detailed articles. A merge would hurt that. 65.19.65.72 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know perfectly well how notability is defined, TTN. If I see this merge is actually going somewhere, I'll work on making a more solid case. Meanwhile, I am in support of finding ways to cut down the length of this article, and merging seems to me to be a step very much in the wrong direction on that. I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say "nothing is going to merged", so maybe you can elaborate on that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Most people who say that don't, so certainly don't blame me. Anyways, I have started trimming it, and it should be able to be cut down pretty far. Just as I said, nothing will actually be merged. A new character section will be added, and the rest of the sections will add on to them. The articles only contain fancruft and other junk that cannot actually be included. Maybe something from the world article will make it, but that is it. TTN 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, probably only Trogdor will need to be merged as it currently lacks any coverage here. TTN 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mostly like the trimming that was done. Just a few things: The section on HRWiki was merged here as a result of this AFD discussion, so it probably shouldn't be unceremoniously removed. For my part, although I am an admin at HRWiki, I have no particular attachment to this section and have always felt it was a bit out of place in the article. Anyway, mostly good, though I'm going to think about it and if I find I don't agree with some, I'll come back to discuss more. Good work! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the actual merging is usually up to the editors of the articles. There should be no obligation to keep it there if they find it to not fit. Though, as this gets reformatted, a mention somewhere probably isn't out of the question. TTN 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mostly like the trimming that was done. Just a few things: The section on HRWiki was merged here as a result of this AFD discussion, so it probably shouldn't be unceremoniously removed. For my part, although I am an admin at HRWiki, I have no particular attachment to this section and have always felt it was a bit out of place in the article. Anyway, mostly good, though I'm going to think about it and if I find I don't agree with some, I'll come back to discuss more. Good work! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, probably only Trogdor will need to be merged as it currently lacks any coverage here. TTN 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Most people who say that don't, so certainly don't blame me. Anyways, I have started trimming it, and it should be able to be cut down pretty far. Just as I said, nothing will actually be merged. A new character section will be added, and the rest of the sections will add on to them. The articles only contain fancruft and other junk that cannot actually be included. Maybe something from the world article will make it, but that is it. TTN 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know perfectly well how notability is defined, TTN. If I see this merge is actually going somewhere, I'll work on making a more solid case. Meanwhile, I am in support of finding ways to cut down the length of this article, and merging seems to me to be a step very much in the wrong direction on that. I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say "nothing is going to merged", so maybe you can elaborate on that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- While that is true, how can you even define sources for any of this? Surely you can't say Strong Bad isn't significant - he has his own cartoon series with over 150 episodes! I definitely oppose any merge whatsoever... Now, if the articles were stubs, I would support a merge. However, they aren't. That means that someone found enough information and sources to make a full article. And not everyone knows about HR Wiki... a lot of people expect Wikipedia to provide detailed articles. A merge would hurt that. 65.19.65.72 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Notability comes from real world information backed by sources, not personal views. Something notable to one person may not be notable to an other person, so sources have to prove that they are actually notable to a wide spectrum. Nothing is actually going to be merged. A "Characters" section may be added, but that won't add much. I'll probably end up cutting this down anyways. TTN 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- These articles desperately need to be consolidated and made into a decent good article. Judgesurreal777 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would lean toward opposing this merge, as I tend to think the characters are notable enough to have articles. More importantly, as it stands, this article is already too long. If we're going to make a merge into it at all, the article itself badly needs to be trimmed down. Until that is done, I firmly oppose any merge. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No merge for Homsar. Yes, Homsar is sad and pathetic and worthless and a stupid loser and a sad pathetic worthless stupid loser, but his article is really good and very informative. I for one am glad somebody took the time to write it.72.207.38.164 11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Mergedadid!! I agree with the proposed merge. Pare down and bring it all here. spazure (contribs) 09:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually pro-keeping Trogdor as a seperate article with maybe a summary that links to the main one on the HR page. The Trogdor article is easily long and in-depth enough to be worth it's own page, plus the character itself is much more widespread in terms of popularity and appearances than say any of the other cast. I mean, come on, Buffy and Guitar Hero? =P Overlord11001001 13:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, keep Trogdor, it might work on its own, but the others should be merged, its a good compromise. Judgesurreal777 00:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Trogdor was an internet phenomenon even apart from the H*R and StrongBad fans, so it could probably survive on its own. The rest should be very much have trivial stuff cut away and get merged in. spazure (contribs) 05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- After you remove the totally trivial stuff, Trogdor doesn't have anything to define itself. The GH is really the only real world part, and that can fit here easily. TTN 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it would bolster this article and he would have his own little section. I say, go for it! Merge away so we can copyedit/reference! Judgesurreal777 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, keep Trogdor, it might work on its own, but the others should be merged, its a good compromise. Judgesurreal777 00:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Although I understand your opinion on the matter of merging all the Home Star articles together, I also can foresee how large the combined article would be. Such a large article would appear unprofessional. TheInfinityZero 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I'm agreeing with TheInfinityZero on this one. I mean, we don't want to make this article more complicated than it is now.Bad-Gy 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It helps to read the discussion before commenting. All that will be added is a few paragraph characters section, not whatever you're thinking of. TTN 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've thought about it a bit, and I'm starting to feel that the merge is pretty consistent with our guidelines for fiction and may very well be the best way to follow them. That said, I admit I'm starting to really question whether our fiction guidelines are really for the best of Wikipedia. It seems to me that they're likely to result in the removal of useful, interesting info. All around, I'm starting to feel people are forgetting that it's not paper.
- Anyway, I realize, of course, that whether or not I like our guidelines is not really what matters here, and as I'm too lazy to go suggest changes in the guidelines, I'm just going to say that I don't thoroughly support the merge, but I won't oppose, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It helps to read the discussion before commenting. All that will be added is a few paragraph characters section, not whatever you're thinking of. TTN 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really see any reason to merge the individual character articles into the main page. The Strong Bad page is pretty good and easily stands on its own. Let's not do any merging quite yet.--Tainter 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- How does it stand on its own? Does it in any way meet the criteria of writing about fiction? Check the criteria, you will be surprised. Judgesurreal777 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I'm agreeing with TheInfinityZero on this one. I mean, we don't want to make this article more complicated than it is now.Bad-Gy 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP. Do I even need a reason? --Jnelson09 01:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uhh, yeah, you do actually, as this is a discussion not a vote tallying exercise. Judgesurreal777 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep How could we merge all of those articles into one? There is so much information on each of the pages that even if we cut them down the page would be huge. Jedibob5 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Teen Girl Squad if it still exists. Weak merge all character articles except Homestar Runner (character), Strong Bad, The Cheat, and Trogdor. Strong Keep the four aformentioned articles because they have more out of universe significance than any Drawn Together character, or any minor Simpsons character. --Sir Crazyswordsman 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strong Keep as Crazyswordsman suggests. That, and the page is just too long to merge into Homestar Runner or List of Homestar Runner characters, although I would merge the minor characters like Strong Sad into List of Homestar Runner characters as they do not have notability outside HSR. --Jon Terry 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Kuralyov 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Isn't there a Wikipediapolicyguideline saying that if an article starts to get too long, you should subdivide the page? Unless we can find a way to trim this article down—way, way down—then I'm not for the merging (yes, I know this is my first edit as a user, but don't let that deter my vote). Anecdote 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Correction: Changing my view to reflect Crazyswordsman's comment. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Somewhat Maybe Main charaters, such as homestar and strong bad, are well enough known to have their own pages.The rest deserve a seperate list page. That way the article isn't too big, but we don't trim too much either. Oystermind 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd support the merge. Considering the very small amount of real-world sources on most of the articles. Why is everyone bolding? This isn't a vote. — Malcolm (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably go ahead and redirect these soon, and just copy over the "Principal Characters" section from the world article to start off with. After that, it should be shaped into a general description of the characters and their interactions. There may be a majority "keep", but they're mostly WP:ILIKEIT and the ever strange "They won't fit" comments (Is it that hard to realize that they'll be downsized?), which have no baring on the discussion. TTN 21:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, as with any discussion on wikipedia, the arguments that count are the ones that actually use policy's we observe, not "I like it" Judgesurreal777 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also agreed. A tiny shame, perhaps, but we're not losing anything that can't be found on the Homestar Wiki as I said. -WarthogDemon 22:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I remain neutral on this matter (after all, HRWiki will always be a better place for this info than Wikipedia, not to mention the all-around better wiki), but I do think it interesting how little regard people have for those opposing the merge. Here's a question: If indeed there is so much opposition to such merges, is this WP:FICT guide really supported by the community at all? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- If we didn't disregard WP:ILIKEITs, we would have articles on every non-notable military personnel that people want to memorialize, every single topic people feel like advertising, and other crap like that. This all goes back to WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, so yes, WP:FICT is the consensus until those are changed or removed. TTN 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I remain neutral on this matter (after all, HRWiki will always be a better place for this info than Wikipedia, not to mention the all-around better wiki), but I do think it interesting how little regard people have for those opposing the merge. Here's a question: If indeed there is so much opposition to such merges, is this WP:FICT guide really supported by the community at all? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, now I have an argument: There is clearly enough information in the separate articles to keep them separate. I've noticed how long articles are often suggested to be split. I don't think this should be one of those if it can be avoided. --Jnelson09 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is a Homestar Runner wiki for that information. It doesn't belong here without real world information, so that is not a valid argument. TTN 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- They haven't merged Strong Bad Sings yet. I don't know why they haven't! But that article should redirect here as well if all the others have!
- There is a Homestar Runner wiki for that information. It doesn't belong here without real world information, so that is not a valid argument. TTN 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
HERE IS A COMPROMISE How about we have 3-4 sentence descriptions for most of the characters, and revive Homestar, Strong Bad, and Trogdor to their former glory. And maybe a main article on SBEmails. Strongbad717 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.202.131 (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hem Hem...
Wasn't The Ugly One who died by getting arrow'd? --68.248.158.216 23:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was. 65.19.65.72 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unfair
If HR can keep its article i think Bonus Stage hould be able to keep theirs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.145.3.98 (talk) 03:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
- HR is more notable than BS. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- What aussie said + WP:WAX spazure (contribs) 01:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also, Bonus Stage has the initials "BS" which is just pathetic.
- So true, so true. 71.79.243.109 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Bonus Stage has the initials "BS" which is just pathetic.
- What aussie said + WP:WAX spazure (contribs) 01:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Everybody-poster.PNG
I have removed Image:Everybody-poster.PNG from the article, which used to have the caption "The multiplicity of characters from the cartoon." This is an example of unfair use; you can't use an image of a commercial product to illustrate what's on the product. For example, if John Galt was on the cover of Time magazine, we couldn't use a scan of the cover in his infobox; however, if we wrote about the magazine article in our encyclopedia article, then we could include a low-resolution copy alongside the commentary in most cases. Since this article doesn't talk about the Homestar poster at all, it's inappropriate to have a picture of it in the article. I hope this helps. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
But they have a picture of it on the site. We could just use that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.98.5 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sbemail Section
The "episode" section is completely worthless. Deleted? Oystermind 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sblounskched!??
Merging means cutting, not nuking. --Sir Crazyswordsman 01:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TROGDOR's proper capitalization..
I was wondering why my edit kept gettinfg reverted. The manual of style REQUIRES that capitalization be consistant, yet I only changed the title intor TROGDOR the BURNiNATOR, and left everything else as "Trogdor" :ds: 71.251.130.4 11:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
(Guest saying this) I have the same problem it keeps reverting back to Trogdor, the Burninator when its just suposed to be TROGDOR THE BURNiNATOR. besides, there has never been a comma there in anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.154.26 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poopsmith
I know that this may not be important but doesn't the poopsmith shrug in the cartoon from time to time? However, in this it says that he doesn't ever show emotion, should this be corrected or just left alone since it is so minor? --Nogain 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Senor Cardgage loopbacks
'Senor Cardgage' redirects to this article, however he does not appear in the list of charatcers (I would add him but I've no idea what to say about him). The only mention of him in this article is the bit about Senorial Day, just after this there is a link that says 'Senor Cardgage' in the text but it links to the article 'List of Homestar Runner Characters' which also links back to this article. Quite a mess. -AndrewBuck 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, taking out the link will just get it put back in, However it happens, it needs to stop 24.177.154.26 (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Characters section
There is no way that section would be better in prose. Seriously, are there twelve different characters or one complicated, confusing one? --Jnelson09 23:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Use subsections. They are more encyclopedic than bullets. —Akrabbimtalk 16:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Prose would be appropriate in this case. A well written paragraph that synthesizes the main characters is what is needed, and both subsections and bullet points would have to be changed since they are unencyclopedic for that kind of material.Judgesurreal777 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have attempted to convert the existing character list into a less "list-like" form. It is difficult to synthesize into one paragraph all the characters but it may be an improvement. Matches10 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really like it like that, it seems like it's trying to find excuses to link the characters to each other, and it gives very little information anyway. 99.226.10.146 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have attempted to convert the existing character list into a less "list-like" form. It is difficult to synthesize into one paragraph all the characters but it may be an improvement. Matches10 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Prose would be appropriate in this case. A well written paragraph that synthesizes the main characters is what is needed, and both subsections and bullet points would have to be changed since they are unencyclopedic for that kind of material.Judgesurreal777 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone should add The Paper and New Paper to the character list. Although technically not "characters," they pose an important position in the SBemails. I would myself, but not without some form of consent from the message board. And besides, I'm not very "linguistically adept." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.47.8 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- This page doesn't need a laundry list of every character from the website. It should be limited to the main, important characters. The rest can stay at the HRWiki. Parsecboy 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The Papers are very important, without them how would we email SB? at least express SBshate of the inkjet 24.177.154.26 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] sloshy
I just wanted to make it clear that sloshy is not capitalized and that it is a alternative rock band, not an emo one. 216.126.209.88 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It also is spelled upside down, I keep trying to make that point, but it gets changed back 24.177.154.26 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- You would be incorrect; the logo is spelled upside down, but all other occurances of the band name are right-side-up. Take a look at Limozeen vs. sloshy. It's also spelled right-side-up in the listing. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Homestar Runner Wiki
I'm curious as to why the section about the Homestar Runner Wiki was removed. In my opinion, the Homestar Runner Wiki is one of the more stable and well-run and popular fan Wikis on the internet. Why it cannot even have a brief mention in the Wikipedia article about its subject while train wrecks like Memory Alpha continue to have large articles dedicated to them is beyond me.BassBone (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I actually would like to know this, too. JuJube (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. HRWiki is very well designed. It deserves its own article on Wikipedia. I'm going to start making one right now.Oxguy3 (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Automatic addition of "class=GA"
A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Where's an Egg? and Strong Bad Sings merger
This is a hopeless stub should be merged in here to build up this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The same goes for Strong Bad Sings. 138.217.145.45 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, both of them are stubbish and should be added here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree for Where's an Egg?, Strong Bad Sings is an actual production CD, which for like any artist Wikipedia thoroughly documents. I do not see that article as stubbish and a lot of its information (and external links) is "compressed" within its templates. --Stux (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just re-looked at it, and it is a bit long and seems to have a lot of references, perhaps we should try to expand it first and then take another look. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The CD deserves a separate page, as all notable CDs do. 71.127.7.184 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It deserves its own page as much as any other audio CD.Seanor3 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I would want to be able, as a fan, to find ALL inormation about a website (product, tv show, ect) under one heading. So mergin the cd here would be ideal IMHO. NashvilleCMA (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree for Where's an Egg?, Strong Bad Sings is an legitamate CD. Doing what Nashville is suggesting would be like merging all album articles with the articles for their artists. GEM036 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- The CD deserves a separate page, as all notable CDs do. 71.127.7.184 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just re-looked at it, and it is a bit long and seems to have a lot of references, perhaps we should try to expand it first and then take another look. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree for Where's an Egg?, Strong Bad Sings is an actual production CD, which for like any artist Wikipedia thoroughly documents. I do not see that article as stubbish and a lot of its information (and external links) is "compressed" within its templates. --Stux (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, both of them are stubbish and should be added here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reinforcements
Why is it that Reinforcements direct to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.44.120 (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- It apparently used to redirect to the old cheat commandos page, but when that page got deleted, someone just redirected it here, to avoid a double redirect. Is there something you were looking for in particular, that would be a better place for "reinforcements" to point? Parsecboy (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] episode list
Why don't we have a page that lists all the Homestar cartoons (like for Weebl and Bob)? I have started one on my userpage. Imjustheretomakebonusstage (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seems unnecessary; please read Wikipedia:Fancruft and WP:NOT#INFO. — Malcolm (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is it anymore unnecasary than a Weebl and Bob episode list? Or having an induvidual page for every single episode of South Park? If Weebl and Bob can have an episode list, H*R deserves one too. Imjustheretomakebonusstage (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Homestar Runner does not come in sequential episodes. There are some exceptions, but for the most part the toons are not to be taken in any real order. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so I guess there really isn't a need for an episode list. On the other hand, what about a list of Strong Bad emails? 71.212.88.85 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Homestar Runner does not come in sequential episodes. There are some exceptions, but for the most part the toons are not to be taken in any real order. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is it anymore unnecasary than a Weebl and Bob episode list? Or having an induvidual page for every single episode of South Park? If Weebl and Bob can have an episode list, H*R deserves one too. Imjustheretomakebonusstage (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki
Shouldn't it be a separate article? It wasn't created by The Brothers Chaps, and most every wiki has it's own article.--{{SUBST:User:Kirbychu HR'D/sig}} 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll direct you to the AfD that resulted in the HRWiki's deletion. That should shed some light as to why it was deleted in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recreating a Characters of Homestar Runner article?
The HRWiki has an archive of interviews, see here. Most of them are linked externally. There should be encyclopedic information there, that all of you extreme mergists ignored. --Sir Crazyswordsman 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Come now CSM, when we were talking about this I don't think anyone knew where they were, but I will happily help construct such a page if there is enough information. Is there? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Look at what we have in the article right now. One paragraph related to ALL the characters. And here I have a plethora of sources, and I bet most of them are WP:RS. This will be our project for next week. --Sir Crazyswordsman 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- One paragraph for every Homestar Runner character is nowhere near enough. Wo ought to make a whole article for the characters. I am in agreement. The characters are extremely deep and complex, and need their own article. And SBEmail need an article, too. EmailBoot42 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I love HSR, but the idea that the characters are deep and complex is ridiculous on its face. They're gag characters that are made to deliver jokes. I'm not against a "Characters of Homestar Runner" article, but going back to the way it was with fancruft-filled articles on everybody, everybody? Nunh-nunh. JuJube (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think having one article for all main characters sounds like a good idea (if we don't have an article for each character, which I would like better). There is a lot of things you can say about each character, and one sentence cannot say it all. – Homestar-winner 12:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I love HSR, but the idea that the characters are deep and complex is ridiculous on its face. They're gag characters that are made to deliver jokes. I'm not against a "Characters of Homestar Runner" article, but going back to the way it was with fancruft-filled articles on everybody, everybody? Nunh-nunh. JuJube (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- One paragraph for every Homestar Runner character is nowhere near enough. Wo ought to make a whole article for the characters. I am in agreement. The characters are extremely deep and complex, and need their own article. And SBEmail need an article, too. EmailBoot42 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look at what we have in the article right now. One paragraph related to ALL the characters. And here I have a plethora of sources, and I bet most of them are WP:RS. This will be our project for next week. --Sir Crazyswordsman 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Upcoming Wii game?
What about the upcoming wii game by the company that made the sam and max games Thats notableAtomic1fire (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
