HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/underlings

Make a Connection

From: underlings
Posted on: 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

1. Re: arg against 1: Some people who live in other countries don't. They may teach it to kindergardners in America, but who's to say they do everywhere?
2. Re: arg against 3: Just because people already know what it is doesn't mean that it's not worth mentioning. We have stated other obvious things in the past that haven't been STUFF'd because it was still a FACT. Just because it's obvious doesn't exclude it from being a fun fact.
3. f it does real help, it must be mentioned. If it does no real harm, it should be mentioned. If it offers no help, then it's not useful. This is just relevantm and informative enough to merit mention.

Arguments against:

1. The explanation feels unnecessary because these puzzles are pretty common. Kindergardners already know this.
2. For those few who might not know, Strong Sad completes an example in the toon.
3. It's a very common thing in Germany, and I believe all over Europe. It should be a game known to most countries all over the world.
4. It's a popular children and adult game in Israel and the Middle East in general and the game appears in children magazines in several languages.

Additional comments:

• I think we all know what a connect the dots puzzle is.
• Re Arg For #2: If it's obvious, and everyone in the world knows what they are, why does it *need* to be explained?
  • And also, there are references that we don't include in the article because they are too obvious, even if they are factual. See Talk:underlings for an example.
  • I look throughout the wiki sometimes, and i see "duh" obvious facts all the time, so i don't see a reason against having obvious facts considered as fun facts. take this for example: "Señor is the Spanish translation for "Mr."..." (from Strongest Man in the World. Although I might think this is obvious, some other non-spanish speakers may not. You could have someone who's been living under a rock for the past decade, not knowing what a connect-the-dots is. I say it's worthy to be considered a fun FACT.
    • Those white fluffy things in the sky are clouds" could also be considered a valid fun FACT by the exact same reasoning. This isn't a dictionary. We don't need to explain what *everything* is, especially if *everyone* already knows.
      • You're basing your logic off the fact that everyone knows what connect-the-dots is. Not everyone may know. You are just assuming that everyone knows common children's puzzles. And you know what happens when you assume things...
        • I'm assuming nothing. Obviously, it's a popular thing in America. Looking at the args against, I can see it's popular in Europe and the Middle East. I can see no reason why it wouldn't be popular in Latin America, Asia, or Australia. It's a common puzzle that transcends language (as absolutely none is *required*), and thereby, everyone should know what it is. I'm not suggesting we "deny the truth" here, but this crosses the border of "no duh" facts. Furthermore, if on the off chance someone *didn't* know about connect-the-dots puzzles, it should be quite obvious by looking at one in the toon itself just what they are and how they work.
    • Re Comment 2.2: These things have been around far longer than a decade.
      • That's not important. i was using it as an example
      • You know, there's about the same amount of declines vs. accepts as there was during a previous fact...closing time?
        • Soon, but not yet — we usually wait for a vote difference of 18-20 or 3-4 days to elapse first.
• Does anyone else think it looks like one of the "Arguments Against" belongs under "Additional Comments," and one of the "Additional Comments" belongs under "Arguments Against?"

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Cilantro-mouth, lalalalalalaa!

From: underlings
Posted on: 23:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

1. Putting it in the transcript explains the joke.
2. It's not really noticable until after it's mentioned.
3. RE: arg against 3: The whole point of the fact is to point out to people that it was visable, even before SB said anything. If it was stinking obvious, then it wouldn't be "worthy", but it's not, so it should be considered a fun fact. Under your logic, i don't see why it's pointless.

Arguments against:

1. This is transcript material. Not Fun Facts material.
2. Re Arg for 1: What joke? It's plainly visible.
3. If it's been there for two weeks, why wouldn't it be visible? The statement of this fact is pointless.

Additional comments:

• Though I didn't know why it was there, I clearly saw it my first time watching the toon before the big reveal.
• Any joke associated with the scene would be that a) Homestar had it in his apparently-nonexistent teeth b) for two weeks without noticing, and c) that Strong Bad went through so much trouble to tell him. None of that is apparent from putting a short blurb in the proper place in the transcript.
• Assuming this is voted down, is it going to be mentioned in the transcript?
  • It looks that way, from Arg Against #1, unless some opponents indicate here that they don't think it should be noted in either place.
    • When I STUFFed it, I assumed that it would be placed in the transcript if voted down.
      • Here is what the Wiki says about STUFF (no pun intended) like this:
        1. Things already noted in the transcript
        2. Things that anybody can figure out by watching the toon or reading the transcript
        • I don't think anyone is disputing that. The question seems to be whether to note it as a fun fact or in the transcript. Some people say they saw it the first time they watched the toon. I, for one, didn't.
          • If it is noted in the transcript, I think it should not say that it's cilantro at first but rather just "something", since at that point in the toon you might know that something is there but wouldn't really know what it was.
            • I can accept that. Something like: HOMESTAR RUNNER: {taking the hot dog; something small and green is visible in his mouth.}

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Office Space Reference

From: underlings
Posted on: 23:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

1. (Re Against 2) Unless there's a cultural phenomenon going on somewhere in the country that I'm not aware of, "...going to need you to..." (the specific way it's said/written) is a phrase that either originated in or was popularized by Office Space. There are a lot of other places (since Office Space) that have used that particular phrasing, but in almost every case, those are either references to or parodies of the movie.

Arguments against:

1. Just ordinary speech.
2. Ok, maybe it's just because I've never seen "Office Space", but... besides "...going to need you to...", which, as noted, is just ordinary speech, how are these two lines at all alike?

Additional comments:

• Actually, this FF should be rewritten as: "We're going to need you to flush twice" is a reference to Bill Lumbergh, the boss in Office Space, who often began his requests and commands with "Yeah, I'm going to need you to ..."
  • Revision proposed.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

1. This version refers to the character who popularized this phrasing style, and doesn't call out a specific line in the movie.

Arguments against:

1. Now it's TTATOT. Ordinary speech. That's all it is.

Additional comments:

• Here are two videos where he says the line eventually:
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZiXoo3TGco
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnUrPjXczYc
• This isn't much better, but it's not TTATOT.
• I'm going to need you to check out lady fan, in which Strong Bad says, "Yeah, cool. I'm gonna go ahead and need you [Homestar] to never say 'twees it out' ever again." Although a little different, the basic construct is the same, and no one tried to claim that was a reference to Office Space.
  • And I'm gonna need you to check out lady fan#Real-World References. There's currently a fact there reading, "Strong Bad saying, 'I'm gonna go ahead and need you to...' is the catchphrase of boss Bill Lumbergh in the film Office Space."
    • So it is. Never noticed when that one was added. Frankly, I consider that one no more valid than this.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Awkward Social STUFF

From: underlings
Posted on: 00:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This vote is only for the part in bold.

Arguments for:

1. The names are similar, and though the band itself doesn't claim to be emo, the BC may be toying with the idea that that they could be percieved as such.
2. In response to the arguments against: that the easter egg is a reference to emo culture is not completely explicit, though it is settled upon in the wiki. Not everyone with one-sided bangs will call themselves emo, though they may consider themselves to be socially awkward -- and many of them are the fanbase fore Broken Social Scene, which could by some definitions be called emo. The use of such a loosely defined term as "emo" here may just not be a good idea. Is it necessarily a reference to BSS? No, but the readership should know that it may be one.
3. It's a cd. This may just be because emo is also a type of music. Or it may be because Broken Social Scene is a band.
4. The names are pretty similar. It's concievable that the BC, upon creation of the phrase awkward social sun, made the mental connection with Broken Social Scene -- which, all else aside, is a pretty emo name by some accounts (a weak argument, admittedly, but it's there...). And a weaker one yet: maybe the Brothers Chaps don't know anything about Broken Social Scene besides that they think of it as "emo."
5. This email comes from Canada. BSS also comes from Canada.
6. Awkward Social Sun is a very random thing to say, even for TBC.
7. BSS has a song titled: "Looks just like the sun."

Arguments against:

1. The band doesn't claim to be emo, so there is no connection between the two other than the name
2. The name isn't even very similar.

Additional comments:

• re: against #1; doesn't claiming to be emo make you un-cool and non-emo? in which case, im completely emo.
  • <irony>Yeah, just like denying being a spy only confirms it, because that's exactly what one of them would do.</irony>
• re: against #2, the name is very similar phonetically, as the last two words are essentially identical, and the first word is a poetic synonym.
• At ArgFor5: How is this even relevant? If the email went exactly the same, except the sender was from Mexico, would that make the (alleged) reference any more there?
  • Um. No. Not a bit. But it is from Canada which does make the reference... more there.

[ Back to STUFF index ]