HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/geddup noise

[edit] Kevin DuBrow strikes again

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• While there was a reference to Kevin DuBrow once before, I don't believe that this references it. TBC are known for random things, and this just seems to be one of them.
• Kevin is a running gag, not a reference to anything in particular.

Additional comments:

• There have been many references to a "Kevin." This is just one of them.
• This should just be listed as another instance of the running gag
• This may fall under the category "patently false."
  • Something is patently false if direct evidence can be given that contradicts it. Here, the first part and the last part are true, so the only issue is whether we think Kevin is short for Kevin DuBrow. I guess there's enough room for interpretation that a vote is necessary, but I wouldn't worry about it too much since this one stands about a zero-percent chance of being accepted as is. (As of this writing, it's unanimous against, and if it stays that way, the item will be closed in a day or two. We do need to have a link to the Kevin article, though, even if it's just a simple mention.)

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Boo!

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 17:13, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• It's the only reference that makes the joke work.
• The e-mail is about a personified sound effect. It makes comical sense that the KoT's boo would be one as well.

Arguments against:

• The "booing" is not similar at all. In geddup noise, it's supposed to be a sound effect.
• In impression, the KoT is heckling Strong Sad. As talented as the KoT is, he can't heckle himself from off-screen.
• Not a reference.
• The KoT is saying "Doooooo!!!" As if it was like "Ta-Da!"

Additional comments:

• For the sake of clarity, is the King "booing" in geddup noise at all? When I initially transcribed it, I thought he was uttering an extended, whiny version of "doo-hoo."
  • Well, there is some disagreement on that point. See this discussion. I think there's a /b/ sound, but I don't think it's "boo" in the normal sense of that word.
• Okay people, if this isnt true, how does that joke work?
• Yeah it's physcially impossible for the KoT to boo himself off screen, but since when has physics stopped a good joke? The whole e-mail is about a personified sound effect! Maybe the KOT's boo is another one.
• Also, he's not saying "Doo-hoo" because A) there is only one sylable and it doesnt start with a "D" sound and B) his mustash isnt moving when the noise happens
• HE IS NOT SAYING "Doooooo!!!", CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT.
  • Thank you for finally logging in, but you don't have to yell. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I want to point out that using the transcript as a reference is shaky at best, because it is easily edited and this very situation has been debated. Furthermore, even if he's saying "booo" (which I believe he is), it doesn't necessarily follow that he's actually booing anyone or anything. Or if he is booing, trying to stretch it into a reference to impression just doesn't seem to hold water.
    • It really REALLY isnt that far of a stretch. We've seen countless inside referenses in HSR cartoons (which is why we have a section for it on this website). If we agree that the voice is saying "Boo," why would you think that it's not directed at someone? Boos are ALWAYS directed at someone. The reason I think it's a reference to impression is because it's one of the KOT's few memorable lines. In impression, he's booing something lame (i.e. Strong Sad) and he's doing the same in this e-mail.
      • The KOT also is known for making -oo noises such as doo, hoo, and in this case, boo. The boo is not necessarily one of disgust, but rather could be just the King being his quirky self.
        • Yes, but ask yourselfs, What makes the joke work?
          • Maybe the joke didn't work. I didn't find the King's booing that funny.
            • You wouldnt unless you knew it was a reference to impression!

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] email #84

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 20:52, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• It is mentioned in the response that it was around email 84 that The Geddup Noise "got all big overseas"
• It is a nice aesthetic detail that one might not notice.
• While it is noted in the transcript, most people don't read the transcript unless searching for a particular piece of information.
• You've got to look closely to see that the e-mail is in fact #84. That's not a transcriptive item, it's a trivial item.

Arguments against:

• Already mentioned in transcript, both by name and by number.

Additional comments:

• This shouldn't even be here: it's in the transcript.
  • True, but maybe this could be taken out of the transcript and noted in remarks.
    • Now that I think of it, it may be more noticable if in Remarks.
      • It should not be noted in remarks. There is nothing about the item that can't be contained in the transcript.
        • Who reads transcripts anyway?
          • See comments down below.
        • In addition, Strong Bad mentions email 84, so it is expected that email 84 would be on the screen. When I watched it the first time, the scene went by faster than I could read the Compy's screen, but I knew in the back of my mind that it was probably email 84. Lo and behold, it is. This would only be noteworthy if it turned out to be a different email.
      • Any expert in H*R would know that it's email #84, but not everyone. It's our duty as a knowledge base to note things like this for people who are less "into" H*R to find out.
        • It is noted where it belongs: in the transcript
          • Yes, but not the actual number. Unless someone automatically knows #84 is kids book, a browser would have to bother looking it up or assuming that its #84.
            • What, is that the problem? The number can easily be put in the transcript... which I have now just done.
              • Number's in the transcript now? Good. Just the comprimise I was thinking of. I'll decline this fun fact now.
    • It's fun. It's a fact. It's a remark. Why shouldn't it be in remarks???
      • It's not that fun, because it's exactly what one would expect. It is a fact, which is why it's in the transcript, and because it's in the transcript, our longstanding custom is that it not be in the remarks.
• Suppose this fact made it through the process... would we then take the mention out of the transcript? That seems counterproductive. And if it's in the transcript, why should it be noted again? There's nothing else really notable about it.
  • The average fan only visits HRWiki to get a specific piece of info, or to read the fun facts and easter eggs. The whole idea of the fun facts section is that you don't have to read the transcript to get interesting titbits like this.
    • That's beside the point. The fact is that someone looking for this info should be expected to be able to find it in the transcript. On something like this, he or she should also know to look there. Doing it differently, however, would require a massive policy shift, which I don't think is the scope of this STUFF page.
      • No, it's exactly the point. The fun facts are supposed to be things you might not have noticed... for example I didn't notice this. If you were "looking for this info" you would surely already have noticed. Leaving it in the transcript would mean you would only know if you'd noticed at the time, or if you read through the transcript. This is exactly why we have fun facts in the first place. Why not just confine all fun facts to the transcript and say "if someone was looking for this info, they could find it in the transcript"? Gosh. If anything, noting it in the transcript would be the policy shift.
        • Apparently, that's not correct. If you truly think the policy should change, you should bring it up on the standards talk page or somewhere that isn't going to be archived away in a week or two.
          • "It is difficult to define everything that a fun fact could be. A fun fact might appear in the form of a bit of dialogue, an object in the background of a toon, a graphic or a musical riff." "These include non-obvious "did you notice?" plot details (that are not noted in the transcript) and general comments about the characters and locations in the toon." - these both seem to describe this fact perfectly. I'm not sure what policy shift you're thinking of... this would not be the only time a fun fact had also been noted in the transcript.
• How about we mantion in the transcript that the email is for kids, and in the fun facs, that for kids is email number 84.
  • This has already been answered on the line right above your comment.
    • What that is noted in the transcript, is what we see/hear. We can't see nor hear that for kids is number 84. There for, this bit should be a fun fact.
      • You can see and hear it. You can see that it's the Compy, not the Lappy. You can read the text, even in real time. Yes, it goes by fast, but not so fast that it's illegible. You can hear Strong Bad say "email 84".
    • Although the fact is redundent for appearing in two different locations and should be removed, it doesn't hurt to have it in both locations.
• By deleting this fact you're just making it harder for people who both don't know this and the high percentage of people who don't read the transcript.
  • If someone really cared about learning this knowledge, they could easily, whether it is located in the fun facts or transcript.
• I suggested this fact and I just like to say I love seeing such a livley debate over something I thought was just a good note. You guys are great! :)
• I was curious if the email on the screen was actually #84. I would've printed screen, but my image maker is broken so i checked the wiki (And many people don't know how to print screen) I rarely read the transcript, so i went down to the fun facts, and it wasn't there, so I decided I wouldn't bother searching for it on another page right now. The fun fact section is probably the most read section, and this should be there.
  • I don't want to be insulting to users such as whoever is immediately above, and forgive the Supreme-Court tone, but I must object to the alarming precedent represented by some of the comments here. The argument that "anything worth noting should be in Fun Facts, since nobody reads the transcript" I find apalling. I don't want to sound harsh, but if somebody isn't willing to check the transcript, they simply don't want badly enough to find out. The transcript is the most important part of the article; it's the primary source for what's-in-the-email. The Fun Facts are supposed to "bat cleanup" for the transcript; to catch anything it left out, and point out connections you might not be aware of. Although my philosophy is typically to include rather than exclude information, I must object on principle.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] home game

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 18:30, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• An example of such games can be found here.
• As with most declined STUFFs, it's only obvious if you live in America.
• Yeah, it is pretty obvious, but it is a good fact!

Arguments against:

• Too obvious.
• Borderline TTATOT (this, that, and the other thing).

Additional comments:

• This item is correct, but is the information obscure enough to warrant an explanation?
• The voice also says Geddy wins a year supply of the game, which is also a reference to game show prizes (...a year supply of Rice-A-Roni...). Do you think this merits its own fact or should they merge?
• I don't think we should put an external link to a commercial website for this fact.
  • I agree. Maybe this could be revised to fix that?
  • when i created this fact, i just had the link under "arguments for". someone edited it to where it was part of the fact. i have no objections to changing it.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] I'm sorry, the correct answer was STUFF'd

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 23:04, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The buzzer in the background and how Homestar responds to it are identical to the main page.

Arguments against:

• It's a reused sound effect, not a reference.
• The sound effect is noted in the transcript, as well.

Additional comments:

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Bubs' Basement

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 07:04, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• There has only been a slight hint there there might have been a basement in the past.
• Just in case it is either mentioned or visited again, this would be documented.

Arguments against:

• Untrue, it also appeared in Broken Compy Menu
  • Ok then, it's the first time anyone has ever mentioned/confirmed that there is a basement. Fact fixed.
    • There was a decent amount of proof before, really. Either he came up from the basement or there's a big hole underneath the Stand that Bubs can climb up.
• Yeah, it's proof that Bub's has a basment, but it's not the first time mentioned.

Additional comments:

• We try to go overboard so much with "first time" comments. Some previous attempts include: "This is the first time we've seen Marzipan's eyebrows." "This is the first time we see the bottoms of Strong Bad's feet." I don't see why these things or this item is remarkable. Wouldn't a short line in Bubs' Concession Stand that reads, "The concession stand has a basement (geddup noise)," or something similar be sufficient?
  • I agree.
  • Actually, now that you mention it, it is listed on the Bubs' Concession Stand page. Sorry for wasting people's time.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Lappy's Glass Screen

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 23:44, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The screen would have to be glass to make that noise.
• It's completely true, unlike some fun facts.
• We always point out unintended physical impossibilities/inaccuracies (to my knowledge)

Arguments against:

• It wouldn't necessarily have to be glass. And who knows what the Lappy's screen is made of anyways.
• This may be a fact, but it's certainly not fun.

Additional comments:

• Unrealistic?? This cartoon features a wrestle man who types while wearing boxing gloves, an athlete who can pick things up and write despite having no visible arms, and a stool that makes a sound like scraping across a wooden floor even though it's clearly on shag carpet. What about H*R is realistic?
• No laptop computers are made of glass or any other thing that makes that sound. You can't press on glass and make that weird affect thingy, although it does happen on the Lappy.
  • The argument against above doesn't say that it is glass, just that it might be something (doesn't matter what) that would make that noise. Then again, maybe Gavin's legs are making most of the noise. The point is, it's all unnecessary speculation.
    • Other things that we accept without much comment: The keys are awfully loud for a laptop. Most of the ones I've seen are a lot quieter than that. Also, we should be able to see Strong Bad's gloves because of the relative position of a laptop screen and its keyboard, but that would really make the sbemails hard to enjoy. It's called "suspension of disbelief."
• The whole email is based on an unrealistic sound effect!

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Weekling

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 23:44, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• TBC have made references to their not checking Strong Bad's email on at least two previous occasions: a dusty, dirty computer in army and the Not the 100th Email!!! short. It naturally follows that they would mark a 7-week absence in some way.
• Every other time a sbemail has begun in an unusual fashion, it has been a reference to something (like the examples above and the tumbleweed in animal). Why else would they do this?

Arguments against:

• There's no evidence to support this.

Additional comments:

• What do you mean "no evidence?" how bout all that evidence right there?
• Reword, split into two sentances: At the start of the email, the lights are off and Gavin is shown crawling on the Lappy. This is because it had been 7 weeks since the previous Strong Bad Email.
  • Splitting it is not really necessary.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Geddy Rush Noise

From: geddup noise
Posted on: 20:16, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Virtually no one else goes by "Geddy"
• The music of HSR.com seems to be heavily influenced by Rush, especially the song "The Cheat is not Dead".
• I find it illogical, with musical tastes as deep and diverse as they have, for TBC not to know who Geddy Lee is. And, as far as I know, Geddy came before The Geddup Noise. It could be a total coincidence, but it makes sense to me.

Arguments against:

• Geddy is simply short for Geddup Noise.

Additional comments:

• Actually, it could just be the more logical choice- Ya know, Geddup-Abbreviation-Geddy? I doubt a tiny reference like that was intended. Occam's Razor needs to take a swipe at some of these suggestions.
• I know somebody named Geddy, so one name is more of a coincidence.

[ Back to STUFF index ]