Talk:Drive-Thru Whale

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 02:31, 19 December 2007

Delete?

Please don't delete this! I spent a long time on this. I always create stuff and it always gets deleted. I'll do anything if you don't delete this. It is one of the main reasons in a toon. It fits all the things a page needs to have. It even has it's picture. If it was part of the comment, I can change it.

I agree. I don't know why the delete template was put up without comment, anyway. It's a major part of a toon, and I see no reason to delete it. Dr. Clash 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the delete tags without a full discussion. — It's dot com 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it fits all the things it needs to have. Even Dr.Clash Agrees with me. Why would you delete. Even ask Dr.CDlash or anyone else (maybe not Phlip ) and they will agree that it should not be deleted. Sam the Man

I know there's no reason to remove the tags wothout discussion, but is there a reason to put them there without discussion, either. Dr. Clash 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Stop begging not to have your page deleted. That's very, very annoying. Nonetheless... 2) I think this is a perfectly legit article. It's an item that plays a major part in Drive-Thru. So, DON'T DELETE --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe don't delete it. I haven't decided yet. But at the very least, it needs a serious rewrite. --DorianGray 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Find a place to merge it to until it gets another appearance. --Crazyswordsman 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Originally I was going to add a mention to The Field, but there doesn't seem to be any room for that... --DorianGray 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm not whining anymore but all the people agree. You should consider it, It's dot com. Sam the Man

You aren't whining?! "Please don't delete this! I spent a long time on this. I'll do anything if you don't delete this.". That certainly sounds like whining. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay if delete to be deleted tag? Sam the Man

Nope. Let an administrator do it. — It's dot com 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I say delete it. I mean, I'll wait to see if it comes up again, but I don't think that we really need this page.-- DongleGoblin 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's significant enough for article in my mind since it's a central part of the short. I don't think we need to hold specific items like this to the same standard as generic items (i.e., pizza, ducks etc.) or running gags in terms of needing multiple appearances. Heimstern Läufer 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of items on Items that've only been seen once, anyway. Heck, Doreauxgard's only been seen once, and look how we treat him. Definitely KEEP. Dr. Clash 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, for above reasons. Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised if this fellow shows up again in another toon, if only as a cameo. Trey56 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I also say keep it. It's an important enough element of the toon to merit its own page. A rewrite might not be a bad idea though. Has anyone posted a clear, specific reason why it's even been nominated for deletion??? (Some kind of scientist 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Say that to Phlip. He was the one who nominated it for deletion. Sam the Man

KEEP. I don't think I need to restate what has already been said. — Has Matt? (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Re-Indenting) Keep again! I say keep again! --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait. I think it might make another appearance. Maybe. We should get some votes before we take action. --Collin Diver 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I added the {{tbd}} template because it's the sort of borderline-notable topic that deserves a "should we keep this" discussion... I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, I just put the template there so that the discussion would happen... note that the template says "is being considered for deletion" – which is exactly what this discussion is doing. I didn't start the discussion when I put the template up, because it was late at night, I was tired, and wasn't really capable of forming coherent arguments... so I went to bed in the knowledge that when I came back the discussion would have started without me. That the consensus seems to be "keep it" is fine by me. --phlip ^T_C 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No please! I have no idea whats going on but I read the first and second to last comment! Dont kill off the Drive-thru Whale page! He's my favorite! I learned some good crap about him when I read this page! Please dont delete it! Okay... I'm done.... ^-^ 65.34.72.52 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Character?

Should the drive-thru whale be considered a character? Specifically, do we think that the source of the voice is (a) the whale itself, (b) someone inside the whale, or (c) someone somewhere else whose voice comes through the loudspeaker inside the whale. Relevant to this discussion are the following pieces of data:

1. The whale speaks as if it is merely a loudspeaker.
2. In one scene, the camera looks out from the inside of the whale's mouth.
3. The whale eats the lobster.
4. The whale launches itself into Outer Space.

#1 seems to suggest conclusion (c), #2 and #4 seem to suggest conclusion (b), and #3 seems to suggest conclusion (a). I realize that any result we come up with is going to be speculation, but I think it's a necessary thing to discuss so that we know whether to classify it as a character, an unseen character, or an item. Trey56 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is tough, as it doesn't fit neatly into one category. I'd say "Character" is the best fit. It seems self-aware enough to interact with other characters, and clearly has its own wants and needs in life--specifically to cause dismemberment and eat a space lobster.(Some kind of scientist 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, I think I agree with you — in fact, I think that the joke might be that throughout the whole short, Strong Bad thought it was simply a drive-thru device, but after he left it turned out to be a creature (evidenced by the lobster-eating and space-launching). Trey56 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be a pseudocharacter, only because (from Pseudocharacters)...

Pseudocharacters are items in the Homestar Runner universe that at some time or another are treated (and in some cases behave) as real characters. They variously talk, move, and interact with the main characters and the audience. Most pseudocharacters are totally depicted as inanimate objects except for a handful of appearances.

Even The Paper, which could answer commands, get sick, etc. is called a pseudocharacter. --^{The Goblin!!} 20:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mailbox

Does any one else see a slight connection between the drive-thru whale and The Mailbox? Both of them are alone in the middle of a feild, apparently far away from the buildings they should be close to.-- DongleGoblin 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true. Maybe we should put a link to the Mailbox. Sam the Man

Sweetie Cakes!

After the mini-golf email, can we count this whale as a Sweet Cuppin Cakes character? Bad Bad Guy 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, can we add this article to a Sweet Cuppin' Cakes category? Bad Bad Guy 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

At least wait 'til the whale has another apparance along side Eh! Steve and the others. It could just be a one off after all. MJN SEIFER 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sketchbook vs. mini-golf

How is the mini-golf image better than Sketchbook one? The mini-golf image is very similar to the one that's always been the page, making it redundant. --Trogga 02:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my first reaction, too. Yet with the current image it shows that it's in the Sweet Cuppin' Cakes universe, as well as the Homestar Runner universe. Honestly, I thought it was fine before.. but I also think it's fine now. OptimisticFool 02:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the Sketchbook image more important? I mean, it shows his evolution. --Trogga 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else? --Trogga 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Blubb-o's Whale end of story. — Defender1031*Talk 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Superb justifications! Anyways, agree. It's clearly Blubb-o's's mascot. --Sysrq868 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, is the whale's name actually Blubb-o? Trey56 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys know that TBC only did this to screw with us... they like to keep us HRWikians on our toes... — Defender1031*Talk 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Trey: Didn't the bag say "You guessed it... We're called Blubbo-o's!", referring to the fastfood place instead of its mascot? --Sysrq868 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but who could Blubbo be other than a blubbery whale? On a somewhat related note, "Blubba" and "Baron von Blubba" are the names of two whales in Bubble Bobble — not saying it's a reference, just that it made me think of that great game. Trey56 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Trey, those guys aren't whales... — Defender1031*Talk 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They's bubble dragons. =] OptimisticFool 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, click on the link, and search the page for "Blubba" — you'll see that they are indeed whales. I'm not talking about the heroes; I'm talking about two enemies. Trey56 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But, um, back to the back to the article. I think Blubb-o's Whale would be better, since despite that the whale's name would be Blubb-o's or whatever, he still IS the mascot for a restaurant called Blubb-o's. So, regardless of what his name is, it's still the Blubb-o's Whale. --Sysrq868 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree — to me, it's fairly evident that Blubb-o is the whale's name, so it's redundant to call him Blubbo's whale. It's like if a guy named Jerry owned a tire store called "Jerry's Tires", and everybody referred to him as "the Jerry's Tires owner" because they couldn't figure out his name. Trey56 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trey: Like many food mascots, the whale's name is most likely to be named in something similar to the restaurant (i.e. Ronald McDonald for McDonald's). He's name could be "Blubb-o Blub", "Bill Blubb-o" or anything else for that matter. The best way we can describe in this now, is Blubb-o's Whale. So, yes, I support the move. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the DVD commentary for Drive-Thru would be helpful. For the sake of everyone, partial commentary beginning from when SB hits the drive-thru whale:

STRONG BAD: So, uh... This— This was really unsettling, Mike.

MIKE: The... drive-thru whale?

STRONG BAD: Yeah. Wha— I— Was he from some type of a seafood restaurant or something?

MIKE: Uh... that serves whale?

STRONG BAD: Ugh!

MIKE: {laughing} Why would you—

STRONG BAD: Maybe. Maybe that'd be good. Blubber sandwiches.

MIKE: Yeah.

STRONG BAD: Blubb-o's, maybe it'd be called. {pause} Um, but later on, doesn't this guy show up in Sweet Cuppin' Cakes land?

MIKE: He does.

So, here's how I see it. Clearly the mascot came before the name of the restaurant, and it seems the name of the restaurant was decided based on the type of sandwiches that might be sold and not based on the mascot. So, until TBC come right out and tell us what this whale's name is, I opine that we keep it at what Mike called it (Drive-Thru Whale) or rename it Blubb-o's Whale. OptimisticFool 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Blubb-o The Whale? Sam the Man 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose renaming it. I would argue that "drive-thru whale" is what TBC use to describe it, and so should we. Renaming it Blubb-o's Whale is not an improvement in my opinion. Also, any guesses on its actual name (if any) should not be in the article and especially not in the title. Loafing 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with no rename, per Loafing. --DorianGray 22:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to change its name. Strong Bad refers to it as a "crackly drive-thru whale," in Drive-Thru Just because it appeared on a bag of food does not mean we should rename it. I really think that the Drive-Thru Whale is just the mascot or icon for Blubbo's.--ONESTOP 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already said that either keeping the name as-is or calling it Blubb-o's Whale would be fine. But, I've since decided that the name ought to be changed. Why? Because the whale is the mascot whether or not it is the drive-thru speaker. Consider its appearance on the bag in nightlife. No pole coming out from beneath it, no speaker in its teeth. So, regarding importance, it's a mascot first, a drive-thru speaker second. OptimisticFool 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Drive-Thru Whale" is no longer a satisfactory name for what this is, as it has been clearly used as something more than just a drive-thru device.-StarLion 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not split the difference and call it The Blubb-o's Mascot?--66.184.136.68 02:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a clearer definition of what Blubb-o's is, we should just leave this article where it is. Heimstern Läufer 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the only thing it's been definitely called, by Mike and/or Strong Bad, so far is "Drive-Thru Whale", then that's what the name should stay, at least for the time being. -DAGRON 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)