User talk:Darth Katana X

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents 1 Changing 2 I know you are, but what am I? 3 Edit Summary 4 Signing Talk Page Posts 5 Timestamp as part of sig

Changing

Darth, this is another drastic change that must be approved by community consensus. The Homestar Runner Universe it not only a website. Please cease and desist now. Heimstern Läufer

"Homestar Runner universe" is a fanon term and anyone with eyes can see that "Homestar web site" doesn't sound dilusional while "Homestar universe" very much does. Think about it for a moment, if you're telling a friend about Homestar Runner, you call it a "web site" and not "universe." Why? Because unless you're inventing a new religion here, "universe" sounds straight weird in real life. And it sounds just as weird on the Internet. — Darth Katana X ( )

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. I was a bit panicked at all those changes. But I still disagree with your changes and request that you begin discussion and get consensus rather than just doing it. Heimstern Läufer 05:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, cool. I just realized something, you need to be a bit more careful with your words: "the Homestar universe it not only a web site" sort of implies that the universe actually exists. — Darth Katana X ( )

universe n. 3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place. (source)

To describe something as happening in the Homestar Runner universe is a bona fide use of the term. It is a fine word, not fanon. (See also fictional universe at Wikipedia.) Please stop interpreting everything you believe we made up as crimes against nature. — It's dot com 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to write this myself earlier, but I was already late for a meeting (crazy Beijing time zone...) Anyway, the reason I believe the term "universe" works fine is that it is a fictional universe, i.e., a complete, somewhat coherent, yet not real existence (yes, I realize that's a bit of an oxymoron). That's my argument for keping the status quo. Heimstern Läufer 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the phrase 'Homestar Runner universe' on this wiki, but not because I consider it 'fanon' or anything. Just because in alternate universe it was revealed that each reality in the website is a different universe, making the website a "multiverse" of sorts. And I don't suggest we use that term. - Joshua 22:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Homestar Runner seems to have different "universes" if you even want to call it that. Thanks for not being too strong to accept change. Why even bother trying to make up an excuse for a term that sounds very dysfunctional? Besides, for the non-nerds visiting, it would be a courtesy not to alienate them with use of the language Geek. If you're not a nerd, Homestar Runner is a "web site" to you, not a "universe," fictional or otherwise. — Darth Katana X ( )

Again with the slights. Katana, I am neither a "nerd" nor am I "dysfunctional", yet I have not found a better alternative than "universe" to describe the phenomenon. "Website" is too limiting - what about the CD? The DVDs? However, I agree with Joshua that, since in canon we see that the Homestar "universe" is a bunch of sub-universes, "universe" is sub-optimal. Still, to make a change, we need a viable alternative that isn't reasonably assailable. So, what then? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Homestar Runner"? For example, rather than "this is a running gag in the Homestar Runner universe," just "this is a running gag in Homestar Runner." Simple, straightforward, and, well, anything is better than "Homestar universe," even "Homestartopia" would be better! — Darth Katana X ( )

"Homestar Runner" is clearly out, as it isn't sufficiently disambiguated fro the character. I'm of the mind that the character would be referred to far more than the "media extravaganza" so "Homestar Runner (character)" isn't a good solution for me. What to TBC refer to their collective output as? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So this as come again down to how we actually call the article, and what is going to be decided here. If the majority (as it seems now) is going to choose "homestarrunner.com" as the name the problem is solved as the name is distinctively different from the character. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 09:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not right. That discussion is talking about what to call everything that is related to homestarrunner.com: the website, the CD, the DVDs, the interviews, the process, the fictional realm itself, everything. The phrase Homestar Runner universe is distinct from that. The universe, in this case, is the fictional realm in which these characters live. You wouldn't say they live on a website or a DVD. Rather, they live in the fictional Free Country USA. And you're misinterpreting the multiverse aspect. All of those sub-universes are subordinate to the main H*R universe, just like how in Star Trek there are multiple universes, yet it is still appropriate to refer to the entire fictional realm as the Star Trek universe. — It's dot com 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? "Homestar Runner universe" still sounds dilusional. Think about it, what would you think if a Ren & Stimpy Wiki made up the "Ren & Stimpy universe" and said stupid stuff like "the word 'eediot' is a running gag within the Ren & Stimpy universe"? You'd think "whoa, they're blowing this out of proportion," right? Well, it's basically the same thing here. I vote just Homestar Runner. — Darth Katana X ( )

No, I wouldn't think that's delusional at all, and judging by the pages and pages written about the concept of the fictional universe and related subjects at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I feel safe in saying that most people wouldn't find the phrase "Ren & Stimpy universe" a delusional thing to say. According to the dictionary reference above, that's exactly how the word universe is supposed to be used. You can find a fictional universe for just about every work of fiction, even ones that are not science fiction, and these universes can be compared and contrasted with each other (like the DC Comics and Marvel Comics universes) or with reality (for example, in the Friends universe, Days of our Lives is filmed in New York and starred one Joey Tribbani (it's really filmed in L.A.), and in the West Wing universe, although a lot of real-life events occur, it's particularly notable that the events of September 11, 2001, did not happen at all like we know them). — It's dot com 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the term 'universe' here, Darth Katana X. The American Heritage dictionary lists multiple meanings. The first is the one you seem to be complaining about: "1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.", while It's dot com means it with the meaning "3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place." (as he already stated), which is often used in discussion fictional worlds. It's a common phrase, makes sense, isn't fanon, and is definitely better than "Homestartopia". (And just because you aren't familiar with it doesn't nessecarily make it uncommon.) - Joshua 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. But think about this, on Wookieepedia, they don't use slogan such as "the phrase 'galaxy far, far away' is an element within the Star Wars universe" because it sounds wrong. They use the word "Star Wars," and sometimes "Star Wars galaxy" because official Lucasfilm media uses that too, but not to the point of "annoyingdom." C'mon, it's obvious that the only reason you people want to keep "Homestar universe" is because you don't feel like changing it. — Darth Katana X ( )

Note that the page you cite mentions "Real-world categories" and "In-universe categories". Wookieepedia:Category:In-universe articles reads "This category is for topics that exist within the Star Wars universe." So what's your point again? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there are about 782 occurrences of the phrase "Star Wars universe" at Wookieepedia (not to mention the over 1.3 million hits on the Web at large). — It's dot com 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, to address your last assertion, that the only reason anyone wants to keep "universe" is a reluctance to change, I think you've got about half of it. The other half is this: I'd support changing it in an instant if a better alternative presented itself. Thus far, that has not happened. When the existing way to do something isn't terribly bad after all, and we don't have a better way at hand, then how the heck can we change it for the better? And why? That's the issue we face here - there's simply no better way that I can see than the way we have it. There indeed might be a better way, but we haven't figured that out yet. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that in principle (except that I would change "isn't terribly bad" to "is pretty good"). In researching this topic, I have found that universe is the dominant term for "fictional realm". I will be genuinely surprised if there is a better way to be discovered. — It's dot com 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate having to repeat myself because none of you ever pay attention to what I have to say. Does "crap is a crucial element within the Homestar Runner universe" sound good? No. Does "Engrish is often used in the Homestar universe" sound good? No. Would the Brothers Chaps ever condone using garbled Star Wars or Harry Potter or Tolkien speak in regards to their silly cartoon? No! (Unless they're really weird.) Why? Because Homestar Runner isn't some fantasy, it's a goofy site, so even if you can think of excuses regarding other fiction, it doesn't really matter.

Also, on the subject of Wookieepedia, they know when use of "Star Wars galaxy" or "universe" sounds right (yes, for real fantasy like Star Wars, there are times when it sounds right) and when it sounds wrong. Like, they wouldn't say "Galactic Basic Standard is a (Star Wars fandom equivilant to 'running gag') within the Star Wars universe." It sounds bad.

A good alternative is just Homestar Runner. In a conversation, I'd say "Trogdor is a character in Homestar Runner," not "within the Homestar Runner universe." It sounds as nerdy as it does unofficial as it does stupid. I'm sorry, but it's just the facts, ma'am (or sir, whoever is reading). — Darth Katana X ( )

K, if you think we haven't been paying attention to what you're saying, then there's no way this conversation is going to go anywhere. Good night. —BazookaJoe 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Katana, reality check time. What you've restated here is opinion. It is not fact. What we have countered your opinions with has been, plainly and simply, statements indicating our opinions haven't been swayed by your arguments. I'm sorry if it's a blow to your world/universe/whatever that we aren't convinced that what you see as a problem is indeed a problem, but there we are. Writing it off as "none of you ever pay attention" is awfully immature - why do you suppose this thread has continued so long? Would that have happened if we were not paying any attention to you?

Your argument amounts to "I believe the word universe isn't a good word to describe the totality of the H*R experience." I can't say I believe that. You can continue to repeat your opinion here, but I'm doubtful I'll suddenly no longer see universe as a suitable word as a result. And this is not a reflection on you, it's a reflection on the nature of the word in question, so please don't take that personally. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  09:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Katana, I hate having to repeat myself because you don't pay attention to what I have to say. First of all, in casual conversation, the phrase "Trogdor is a character in Homestar Runner" might be adequate, but for a knowledge base, we need to be more specific. Second, we are not making up the term universe. It is not nerdy. It is not unofficial. It is a dictionary word with an established meaning. Notice the lowercase u-. It's not a title. It's not fanon. It is a noun that means "the fictional place where the characters of a work would exist if they were real." The acknowledgement of the existence of a fictional universe (whether we're talking about Star Wars, Back to the Future, or whatever) is what makes serious discussion possible. Last, the use of the term Homestar Runner universe is not specific to this wiki. Oh, and please stop resorting to calling us stupid in an attempt to make a point. — It's dot com 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call any of you stupid, unless you are all the word "universe." Anyway, I don't know what else to say without sounding redundant. No matter what I do, you guys will never see that I'm right just because I'm "unimportant," but whatever. — Darth Katana X ( )

I knew you would say that, but I put it that way anyway. I really feel like you're calling us all stupid by extension. I'm not sure what you're looking for with your "unimportant" comment there. Validation? Acknowledgement of your existence? Guess what... you exist. Now be quiet about that already. I and others have, with open minds, thoroughly and sincerely considered your arguments, yet we remain unconvinced. You must therefore consider for a moment that you just might not be right. If you can't even consider that, then there is nothing else to discuss. — It's dot com 06:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth, we do indeed look to find out if you're right: note what Dorian and Qermaq said on Category talk:Running Gags. I would hazard that the fact that people aren't too quick to agree with you is not because you're "unimportant", but because you have lost your credibility (this is certainly the case in my mind) by your continuous rudeness and occasional decisions to disregard the wiki community and make drastic changes without consensus. Heimstern Läufer 07:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, you and It's dot com are right about that, but let's get back to the matter at hand: even if the term "universe" doesn't seem flimsy to you, it's most likely inaccurate as Joshua has pointed out because Homestar Runner has different "universes," so, for example, all of the Engrish used isn't in one universe, but in multiple ones, Homestar's world, Stinkoman's world, Teen Girl Squads' world, et cetera. Likewise, if we just keep it like this because either we can't think of a better term, we don't feel like going through the rigamarole of replacing all use of the term, or both, this will end up just like the Visor Robot fiasco, stressing over something and never fixing it. So, let's get some ideas. Because no matter where you stand in this debate, there are flaws involved in the whole "Homestar universe" thing. — Darth Katana X ( )

Either you missed it or are ignoring it, so I'll restate the fine point Dot com made earlier: "...you're misinterpreting the multiverse aspect. All of those sub-universes are subordinate to the main H*R universe, just like how in Star Trek there are multiple universes, yet it is still appropriate to refer to the entire fictional realm as the Star Trek universe." Your points have been made, they have been listened to and weighed by the community (including yourself), and the majority has reasoned that universe is a perfectly acceptable way of describing Homestar Runner. Any further discussion on the matter will likely only be going around in circles, repeating things stated, just like I've already repeated Dot com's well put prior comment. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, this is starting to sound extremely nerdy. — Darth Katana X ( )

You say that as if it was a bad thing. :P - Joshua 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that applying such nerdulence to Homestar Runner in order to come up with an excuse to use the term "universe" isn't much different than using such talk to describe Ren & Stimpy or Robot Chicken. No one cares about the "Robot Chicken multiverse" or any other fantasy book-induced assumptions like that. Or at least no one normal. — Darth Katana X ( )

What is "normal", anyway? --DorianGray

You know, I'm actually not sure, it's actually highly debatable, but it did help me drive home by point. ;) — Darth Katana X ( )

I know you are, but what am I?

Ummmmm... why'cha call me a moron? My edits weren't that bad... --Trogga 04:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright you guys. Dispense of all the whosits and name-calling. You two are old enough to take it to the talk page instead of starting an edit war.  Loafing 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Old enough? For all you know I'm still in my mother's womb! — Darth Katana X ( )

Wireless Internet, huh? THAT'S AMAZING!  Loafing 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, no more jokes now. I'm sorry for calling you a moron. It was the testosterone talking, which I was, at the time, possessed by. Sorry, man. Peace. — Darth Katana X ( )

Edit Summary

Hello, and thanks for contributing to the HRWiki. When editing a page, there is a field labeled "Summary" under the main edit-box. Please remember to always fill in the summary field, as even a short summary is better than no summary. Indicate in the edit summary field why you changed the page; this will greatly help other contributors in understanding your reasoning. Thanks.  Loafing 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I was in a hurry to get all the arrangements regarding the retirement saga done and didn't even think about it! — Darth Katana X ( )

Heh, no prob. Loafing 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Signing Talk Page Posts

Hello, and thanks for contributing to the HRWiki. When adding comments to a Talk page, you should always sign with your user name and the current time and date. If you place four tildes like these {{User:Loafing/sig}} 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) at the end of your post, they will automatically be replaced with your signature and the current timestamp. You can find more info here. Thanks.  Loafing 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Darth Katana X 09:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. That link also gives you tips on how to use your sig with ~~~~.  Loafing 09:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Timestamp as part of sig

Hey, Katana. Noticed you attempting to add a timestamp to your sig by default. Hate to break it to you, but this probably isn't a good idea. For one, that 4th ~ does that quite easily. Secondly, if you vote in STUFF you need to not have a timestamp, so you'd be kinda stuck there. Might be best to set it up without a timestamp, then if you want the time use 4 ~'s, if not then just the 3. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you added "02:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)" to every instance of your sig. What you need to do is revert your sig and instead change your prefs so that {{User:Darth Katana X/sig}} appears in the "Nickname" field and that the "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" box is checked. Then sign normal posts with four tildes. — It's dot com 03:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. — Darth Katana X ( ) 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)