Talk:Field Day Intro
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Location, Location, Location
Where did anyone find this toon, and why do people think it was released April 1, 2006? Homestar-Winner (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Release Date
Firefox tells me that the Flash file was modified 30 May 2003 5:39pm. It also tells me that the HTML file was modified 2 April 2006 5:46pm. Considering that Bluebry found the HTML to be modified April 01, 2006 11:46:20 PM, I'm assuming that Firefox did factor my timezone in there, so the Flash file would have been modified 29 May 2003 11:39pm in Bluebry's timezone. I'm going to adjust the time in the article accordingly. That date is very close to midnight, so depending on where Bluebry lives, the toon may actually have been published on 30 May 2003. Erm, only time will tell! Loafing
19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm getting that the Flash file was modified last on Friday, May 30, 2003 12:39:46 AM. However, due to that time's proximity to midnight, it's hard to come up with a release date. Should it be listed as May 29/30?· · T2|Things 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is a bit stupid, as "Release Date" implies that it was released. I say we mark it as not having been released. — Defender1031*Talk 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Tom reverted the date back to the HTML date, which is 3 years after the Flash date. Which one should we use? Since the toon hasn't been released, I'd go with the Flash date, since this actually tells us how old the toon is. The HTML date is completely irrelevant in this case. Loafing
20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can't we mention both? "Date: April 2 2006 (HTML file), Month Day 2003 (Flash file)"? Bluebry 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- flash — Defender1031*Talk 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So where do we stick it on the H*R.com Updates page...? --DorianGray
- Hmm... this is difficult... Because of the fact it HAS an HTML file, I might put it in 2006. However, we CAN put it in both 2006 AND 2003. But, I dislike that idea. So, '06 is my opinion. Bluebry 21:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- NO WAIT-I'VE GOT IT! Look, I think April Fools in 2006 might have led to the page last modified thing; I'll do some more research and keep everyone updated. If so, it means we'd have to go with 2003. Bluebry 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it was never an actual update, so i say it goes nowhere. — Defender1031*Talk 21:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- NO WAIT-I'VE GOT IT! Look, I think April Fools in 2006 might have led to the page last modified thing; I'll do some more research and keep everyone updated. If so, it means we'd have to go with 2003. Bluebry 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
