HRWiki talk:Standards

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 18:05, 26 November 2007

Suggestion for transcripts

How about in transcripts Homestar Runner is just referred to as Homestar after the first mention like so:

HOMESTAR RUNNER: I wike mushmallows.

STRONG BAD: I like Cold Ones.

HOMESTAR: Yeah, dat's weawwy gweat.

— Darth Katana X ( ) 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's not a bad suggestion. It's probably okay either way — just depends on whether people prefer the historical, slightly bulkier way of doing it. I don't really have a preference, personally. Trey56 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —BazookaJoe 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea! Of course I'd like to also hear it from Dot com's publishing perspective. --Stux 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should see a few representative test pages. Given how many pages would need to be edited, we need to figure out how much of a benefit it would provide, if any. — It's dot com 18:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this working best on origins (Don't ask my why, pumpernickel and wye), Decemberween Short Shorts (If you lewn to say wouds wide!), and Marshie vs. Little Girl (Wait a minute you'we a little giwl! I thought you was a little ghoul.). My spelling of impediments could probably be better. Bad Bad Guy 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed. It's very hard to read for non-native speakers. Depending on their skill level, it can be impossible. It would also make it much harder to search for a certain phrase. "That's very great" is easy to search for, while "Dat's weawwy gweat" is hard to search for because there is no set spelling and it depends on how the individual person actually hears him say it. Loafing 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, here. I don't think this thread is even talking about the same thing anymore. Unless I'm reading it wrong, Darth did not suggest writing Homestar's words as they're pronounced; rather, he suggested we not write HOMESTAR RUNNER each time he appears in a transcript. Heimstern Läufer 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're correct. Trey56 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops! That's actually a good idea, I think ;-) Loafing 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, either way we decide, I don't think it's worth the effort of going through every single past transcript and changing them. I'd be okay if we decide to switch for future articles though (and I don't think the inconsistency would be problematic). Trey56 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could always have The Cheatbot do it. Still, I'm not sure it would be enough of an improvement to change our standards over, which it why I'd want to see some samples first. — It's dot com 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Standards for Real-World References

Recently, there have been removals of Real-World References because the reference in question was not made by TBC, but instead the sender of a Strong Bad Email. This has been done with island ([1]), extra plug, and underlings ([2]). Currently, there are no official standards regarding this issue.

I believe that references such as these should be noted in the Fun Facts. I'm not saying they must be in Real-World References (although it wouldn't hurt). They could just as easily fit in Trivia or even Remarks. They should be included somewhere, because they point out things that the viewer may not be aware of, which is the entire purpose of all Fun Facts. I was not aware that Yami Yugi was an allusion to Yu-Gi-Oh until I read it on the Wiki, and I didn't know the significance of PlasticDiverGuy's name until I did some serious Googling. Why should we keep a reference from being on the page just because TBC didn't think it up? — Has Matt? (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It makes sense that such references be explained as well. We must keep in mind that even though TBC didn't think it up, they did choose the email out of hundreds maybe even thousands they receive. And more often than not, there is a purpose behind that choice and so background information would be necessary. --Stux 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for including them if they are cryptic and relevant (such as explaining the sender's name). I'm strongly against listing them as RWRs. Only references by TBC should be listed as such. These facts should be added under "Remarks". Loafing 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Loafing. While they are not TBC's references, they could be included in Remarks if they require explanation. As I'm probably the user who removed those facts, my reasoning is that we are documenting TBC's work, not the work of the contributors. However, I can see a purpose in explaining thru a Remark the relevance of a particular sender's name or other allusion within the body of the email. I'd like to see RWR and the like reserved to references made by TBC. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt I should bring up one of the older, yet more extreme cases of this. This one wasn't as direct a reference, but eventually went to STUFF (the old STUFF), and the discussion was revived a year later. It might be worth looking into. Talk:monster truck#Get Back Loretta! (DECLINED) is the section to look at. --DorianGray 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it's a bit late to be adding to this discussion, but it seemed like the best place to do it. Directly relating to the line of conversation, I'd argue that TBC do sometimes edit emails, and not use them verbatim. As Stux pointed out, they do also choose to use the email, and are thus making a decision to present its contents to their viewership. As a result, it is not generally possible to distinguish exactly what content is written by TBC, and what is contributed from other sources. Therefore, the line is a bit fuzzy, and even if the rule is that references made by the sender should not be listed under real-world references, it's difficult to determine which category any particular reference falls under. In this case, my personal opinion is that we should be lenient in excluding RWRs on the basis that they were from the sender, and not TBC.

As for my tangential discussion: Considering all the furor over RWRs in recent emails, most particularly web comics, I think we need a more formal definition of what a "reference" is. Going off just the word alone, I would think that the referrer would have to indicate in some way what it was referring to. Similarity isn't enough. An instance of something can be exactly like something that previously existed, and yet not be a reference. To put it simply, what is the difference between a reference and a coincidence? TTATOT helps, but doesn't address the fundamental difference. TTATOT just distinguishes between a specific reference and an abstract reference. I think a formal definition, or at least discussion, would help clarify things for users of the wiki, and reduce the number of invalid real-world references proposed. It might help resolve some of the long-standing STUFF debates too. -- LGC&CS 23:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be more useful and more accurate to say that TTATOT distinguishes between a specific reference and a general reference, rather than an abstract one. -invisible_map

Linking titles of toons only once

So, right now our policy is to link to any other article only once within a given page. However, this creates the question, "How do we make toons and emails stand out from the surrounding text when they have already been linked to once?" There are a few options:

1. Link the name of a toon every time it appears (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")
2. Underline the name of a toon after it has been linked once (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")
3. Italicize the name of a toon after it has been linked once (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")
4. Leave the name of a toon unformatted after it has been linked once (e.g., "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings. underlings was also the first email to...")

Although I think #4 is our default option, I think it is the worst one. Especially for the titles of SBEmails, the title doesn't stand out from the text very well. My top choice is #1: with this option, the title of a sbemail looks exactly the same every time, and if a person is reading the second appearance of that title, they don't have to search for the first appearance to find the link to go to that page.

Do other people agree with this? If so, we would need to adjust our linking once policy and update some articles accordingly. Also, I imagine that this principle would apply to the titles of games, etc. Trey56 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like Wikipedia's policy on the matter:

An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
...

• A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;
  
• However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate ... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.

I think linking every single time would be too much. It would probably be too distracting for the reader. But I think linking once in each section of the article is a good compromise. That way, the screen wouldn't be cluttered with a bunch of unnecessary links, and people wouldn't have to search very far to find a link. And about making the title stand out, there's another possibility you haven't thought of: quotation marks. I know we've been avoiding them for a while, but they aren't that bad, really:

Strong Bad appeared in the email "underlings". "underlings" was also the first email to...

It's more subtle than a link, but it still makes it stand out from the text. — Has Matt? (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a helpful page you linked to. Unlike WP, we use links to make the titles stand out in addition to provide a route to their articles. But you bring up a good point about excessive linking nonetheless.

If we didn't link a toon title every time, I would be a proponent of underlining rather than using quotation marks. Underlining makes the titles look consistent to their linked appearance (the only difference being the color). Also, TBC do this (see for example here). Finally, on a very subjective level, quotes look a little less professional to me. Trey56 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Links are underlined for you here? Not for me. That would seem awkward. I propose using context to solve this issue - if the name of the link alone yields unclear context, then use a qualifying term, such as in "There are several instances of fire in the email pom pom." But I don't see why any adornement is necessary. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the example above is a fair one, because the sentence could easily be recast to avoid the double link (and in the process would read better, too): "Strong Bad appeared in the email underlings, which was also the first email to..." Aside from that, I don't have a problem with linking every toon title. In a sense, the link is the punctuation. I strongly disagree with putting quotation marks around them, simply because we've made it this far with relatively no confusion, so there's no need to fix something that isn't broken. On a related note, I think the line where it reads "duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate" is something we should practice for non-toon links (for example, links to characters), unless there is an established and consistent place where the reader can learn to find them (like the cast and places lists on toon articles). — It's dot com 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gags section

This discussion was originally located at Talk:Single Episode Running Gags. See this sample of what a gags section could look like within in an article.

{after some discussion of a page documenting running gags within single toons}

I have an idea! I think we should do something totally different, we should put a new categorie in the toon that has the gag and call it Gags. :It could be placed right above fast forward and it would make everybody happy! We would just put what ever gag that the toon has under there, and we could put whatever running gag it has there. I hope this works, because i'm out of ideas. --Kanjiro talk 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When someone gives me the okay, i'm going to start work on it.--Kanjiro talk 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a wiki, you can edit any article always. If you can make it work, then by all means, do. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 01:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

{after more discussion of the original topic}

So should i do the gag thing or not?--Kanjiro talk 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Use your judgement. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is done. I'm not sure if you guys want to keep it or not, maybe STUFF it, i dunnno. Check out this.--Kanjiro talk 04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys likes it? I haven't gotten any feedback yet, so I'm going to start putting it on more pages.--Kanjiro talk 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I LOVE IT! I knew there was some kind of a compromise. I'ma join in.^Super!Santana^Duper!

I think "Gags" should be just before "Inside References", though. DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, were going to do it, but i need some help, we are going to have to do every toon, email, and anything with gags in it, i'll take emails, santanahomerunner, you take toons, and get more people to help, this is going to be big.--Kanjiro talk 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ready? BREAK! ^Super!Santana^Duper!

SantanaHomerunner 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Halt production on gags, we must discuss it more.--Kanjiro talk 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I Have an Idea, lets ask joey day if he likes the idea, i mean he created the wiki, so he should know whats best.--Kanjiro talk 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Joey would be the first to tell you that, in cases like this, the consensus of all the editors is what counts, not one person's opinion. — It's dot com 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A "Gags" section would be highly unnecessary. Why have a whole section for something that's A) obvious while you watch it, and 2) would only have one item underneath it? --DorianGray 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It woulden't have one item underneath it, it would have all of the running gags the toon has in it, it might have one if the toon has one running gag in it.--Kanjiro talk 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which would more than likely be only one, given how the "Single Toon Gags" page was set up. Unless you're proposing to break up what we already have established as Inside References. --DorianGray 21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the section would be against our policy of not explaining the joke to an extent.-- Super Martyo boing! 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sold on the idea yet, but I can see the advantage: it provides a standardized way of listing the running gags which we list anyway but are somewhat inconsistent about. That is, sometimes we hang a link in the transcript or in another fun fact, sometimes we have a separate fact of the form, "This is another appearance of X", and so on. Trey56 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the inside references do not show running gags hidden inisde the toon. Look! They're different! ^Super!Santana^Duper!

Hmm... I don't think that those single-episode running gags should be included. I definitely agree with DorianGray and Super Martyo Brother that that explains the joke. Trey56 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And if not including them (which is a good idea), it's just unnecessarily breaking up Inside Refs. --DorianGray 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I've often thought there should be a separate section for things that are mentioned but aren't really references. A list of "Callbacks" or "See Also" or something might work. As for "Gags", I'm against anything that would unnecessarily explain jokes within a toon. — It's dot com 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But otherwise running gags are not mentioned. Lookie! Lookie! Neither of them mention the running gag of being "on point", said by Marzipan in the dating sim, relating to the on point kings. ^Super!Santana^Duper!

Oh! And we have forgotten that inside references don't mention something like Toga-yoga from DNA Evidence. And I feel like if it's mentioned three times it's should be like a regular running gag and be mentioned. I mean, it's not like we are giving them their own pages. ^Super!Santana^Duper!

Ditto for secret identity not mentioning Strong Sad hyper due to caffeine.(easter egg) Inside references refers to charactes, other toons etc. Gags would refer to running gags in the toon and gags throughout the toon.^Super!Santana^Duper!

I've been gone for awile, so like what happened? I vote for gags. Oh, and i noticed something that should be placed in single episode running gags: In theme song, strong bad makes shaheen's name sparkle whenever he types it.--Kanjiro talk 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to remain open-minded about this, but it keeps coming back to this essential question for me: is it necessary to list the gags that occur within a toon? Really, that'd be the only added feature of a Gags section. We can already note running gags in Inside References, or Fast Forward if it's the first instance. But is it really something we need to do? To me, it feels like we are insulting the intelligence of the reader: "Ok, here's what's the funny stuff is in this toon." If you can watch thewhole toon and have the attention span of a four-year-old, you'll know all of this already. The Fun Facts regarding cross-toon gags is important as we cannot assume the reader has seen everything, or indeed anything but this one toon. But we can assume, and I feel must assume, the reader can and probably has seen the toon in question from start to finish, or is at least capable of it, and as such doesn't need the gags which appear spelled out. Mind you, it's not an especially bad idea. But that's not the test, for me anyway. i'm looking at the benefit vs the cost, and the potential insult to the viewer more than offsets the benefit of noting these few extra gags. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I know the running gags are already listed under inside references, but what i did is put all of those gags under gags--Kanjiro talk 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, everyone should see above, where this idea was already discussed and declined. -- Super Martyo boing! 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just put the thing that talks about an instance of a single toon running gag in inside references?--Kanjiro talk 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I really, really don't think we should do inside-a-toon gags. 1. They explain the joke. 2. They insult the reader. And for reasons already stated in this and the discussion my last post linked to, we don't need a separate gag section for running gags. It was a good idea, but it (the single toon running gags) makes us seem like know-it-all's and makes the reader think that we think they didn't get the joke because they're stupid or something so we have to spell it out for them. This may cause the reader to vandalize pages or ridicule people on the talk page and, most likely, make it so that every single page that there's a gag section, a message on the talk page, saying "Hey, I'm smart enough to know that the toga-yoga class gag was a joke continued throughout the 'toon, and I don't need it explained to me by some geeks who think they're smarter than everyone else. --65.834.771" -- Super Martyo boing! 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I don't think that's a real IP address)

Ok, if you guys don't want it I'm fine either way.--Kanjiro talk 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Inside References was a fine place to put instances of running gags until someone tried to count "This is the 1st mention of DNA Evidence" as one of strong badathlon's inside references. (I already moved it to trivia) I do not think gags that ran in one toon are worth mentioning. Bad Bad Guy 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the gags section creates feelings of, "Oh, I like (insert multi-toon gag here), it's nice to see it's still alive. Oh, well if Toga-Yoga only lasted 1 toon why should you put it there? I already know they talk about it too much in that toon." Bad Bad Guy 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Filmography Pages

I'm just asking, in mini-golf, a lot of characters made appearances, and most of those characters don't have their own filmography pages. The filmographies on their character pages have 5 to 6 appearances listed. I agreed that the Drive-Thru Whale's two appearances don't warrant their own page yet, but the question is, how many appearances does a character need to have their own filmography page? — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudocharacters never deserve filmography pages (at least that's what I assumed after noticing there was none for The Paper, the Bear Holding a Shark, The Geddup Noise, the Tire, or The Stick). Bad Bad Guy 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Bad's computers actually have some but that's just because we wouldn't have the 178 Strong Bad Emails without them. And theirs aren't even complete because no loafing and candy product are missing from the Tandy's category because it only played small parts in those 2 emails. Bad Bad Guy 02:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast list formatting 2

Should we change "Cast (in order of appearance)" to just "Cast", seeing that things like the Main Page aren't really in a fixed order? --Trogga 01:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they ARE in an order, if you start with "Toons", and go straight down. --DorianGray 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't make you do it in that order. --Trogga 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Time Difference Between Official and Actual

Occasionally, there is a difference between the time stated on the TV Time Toons Menu and actual running time. Two good examples would be Cheat Commandos (toon) and business trip. Before adding the note, I want to confirm that the format of

xx:xx [[TV Time Toons Menu|official]], xx:xx actual

should be used and that special case be noted in HRWiki: Standards. If not here, where should it be placed? wbwolf (t | ed) 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be what we use. I say go for it. — It's dot com 14:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

Should we follow Wikipedia's lead and start adding "cultural reference" sections to Fun Facts sections instead of "Real-World Reference" sections? Bad Bad Guy 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, cause they're not all cultural... Some are historical, etc. — Defender1031*Talk 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Bad's Replies

When transcribing the scenes in Sbemails where Strong Bad types replies to the emails, would it be better to transcribe what he says or what he types? The transcripts for crazy cartoon, pom pom, and bike thief are modeled after the things he says, but the transcripts for island, do over, and isp transcribe what he types. (I already edited island and do over to what he says) I am not asking about those scenes where Strong Bad reads the email and changes a little part, I am talking about the scenes where he types his replies. Bad Bad Guy 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I find it necessary to ask is because after a edited island some people who misunderstood my reason asked me to change it back. Bad Bad Guy 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• do over: No. Hold on. No, no dying. {He only types one "no."}
• island: I'm sure in real life it would be much more annoying and painful with Homestar involved. {he types "Dumpface" instead of "Homestar"}
• crazy cartoon: In fact, I'm not even gonna call you monkeydude {he types "******" instead of "monkeydude"} again. I'ma call you Josh.
• pom pom: All right. I'm ready to go. {Types as "aligrt u.ln reay tui gi"}
• bike thief: {During the next part, Strong Bad types "Your bike should be totally safe if you listen to me. I am a good person that gives sound advice. Bike on, my friend, bike on!" while he says his other lines.}
• isp: How else could I download this awesome animated gif/gif {Pronounced as /gif/, /jif/} of a cute breakdancing rodent?

This is what we're talking about, right? (I wasn't sure about isp.) — It's dot com 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's correct except I was thinking of a different do over scene:

Whoa. Coach Zed. That's way cooler. I'm gonna start calling him that too and maybe he won't suck so bad! Thanks, Richie! Your pal, Sed Bed {Types as SB, clears screen}

But that's a little picky and you got the main point of my post. Bad Bad Guy 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think it reads better if for the most part you can hear in your head what Strong Bad is saying out loud, and I think it's easiest to do that when we transcribe what he says and then note the difference between what he types. Seems logical to me, especially in those examples. (The standing exception, of course, is that we display the email itself exactly as shown and note SB's variations below it.) — It's dot com 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the line I was first thinking for isp ("gif/gif") is not affected by this standard. /gif/ and /jif/ are both ways of pronouncing the word, but it's still spelled "gif" in both cases. Thus, we have indeed typed what he says, and the note just clarifies it. — It's dot com 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for this type of change to the transcripts, excluding when Strong Bad is reading the original email differently than it appears. Like Bad Bad Guy said. OptimisticFool 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't like the fact that we rely on what's on-screen for the original email, while relying on speech for SB's typing. Then again, I suppose a little double standard is OK in this case, especially since some of the things SB types are a bit too outlandish for a transcript (especially pom pom). Heimstern Läufer 17:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a double standard as a shortcut. We could type everything Strong Bad speaks as part of the transcript below the verbatim email (just like we do for subtitles), but I think it's unnecessary (and we'd lose some subtlety). But more than that, I think it makes sense from a logical standpoint: When Strong Bad pulls up the email, if you scan it quickly, you could read the whole thing yourself right then. As Strong Bad reads it, however, he amends it in notable ways. Thus, we display the email and then list his changes below it. It's different when he starts to reply: the screen is blank, and your eyes can't skip ahead; they can only read along as he types what he speaks. The focus of what's important has shifted to what you hear, and at this point it's become notable to point out where what's typed does not match what's spoken, rather than the other way around.

As a corollary to this discussion, I think it would be appropriate and useful to list the direction "{brings up the email and reads it aloud}" after each email song and before the quoted email, since we never really state that anywhere. — It's dot com 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How "picky" (for lack of a better word) are we going to be? I just noticed in your friends that during the last scene, Strong Bad says, "...a bath or something but, uh... just the thought of that...", but does not type the "uh...". This filler has been transcripted when he's not typing (ghosts comes to mind), so I don't know what to think. I don't think it's that important; no meaning is lost. But if we don't do this type of thing, where do we draw the line? OptimisticFool 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Live action toon screenshots

JPEG format is generally only desirable for "live action" toons such as Puppet Stuff

I'm not sure I agree with this (or if for the most part our current practice did up until recently either). We're still taking screenshots of Flash toons, not photos. JPEG should just be used for photos. Thoughts? -- Tom

Given that JPEGs use lossy compression, when would it be appropriate to ever use a JPEG (assuming it's a situation where you have a choice and not, say, an original image that is already in the JPEG format)? — It's dot com 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand things, that's exactly right. JPEGs should only come from cameras. Things like Image:20070426 GA Tech event venue.jpg, Image:The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island from Battery Park.jpg, and Image:craigzobel.jpg are good examples. -- Tom 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Has it always said JPGs for live-action toons? That makes no sense... PNG unless no PNG exists, for sure. Homestar Coder 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)