Talk:Made-up Real Things
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Um. It does appear everything on that list can be seen as just Strong Bad Email Spinoffs. The only thing not on that list is the switching of the gender of the Lappy, which may not be added on that page since it really isn't a 'spin-off'. Delete? At least until I hear an argument for it, I guess.--Silent 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete! Undelete! There are more that were just made up in one or another 'toon that wasn't a sbemail. Besides, It's a stub. If it never gets past stub status, then and only then should we de-1337 it.
is anyone thinking of new names
maybe:
- bizzare changes, in the case of the lappy, anyway
made up stuff that are now real(or something of a similar nature):
- initially made up real things
- real stuff that was made up(tee hee, that sorta rhymes)
that's all i got right now. no other ideas
Homsarstrongbad150
01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. I think the current name is still better than those. The last two of your suggestions are just the current name rearranged a little. The first suggestion doesn't really capture the spirit of the page. — It's dot com 02:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
How about "Reality Transitions"? --Chipwich 02:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please elaborate on why you think that would be a good name. I think it is somewhat vague. The current title, although whimsical, is a little more concrete, has a certain ring to it, and is kind of catchy. — It's dot com 15:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't as whimsical: more mature, (no offense.) and It's shorter. The made-up things "transitioned" into real life. --It probably won't be supported; it was just a suggestion. Chipwich 00:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be supported. Acceptance from --Jellote 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC) univeristy.
- I like it too. Omnisweater 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, please elaborate on why you think that would be a good name. I think it's a poor choice because it doesn't describe the items in the list as much as the process they must have undergone. In other words, the Gremlin is not a reality transition. Limozeen is not a reality transition. They may have undergone a reality transition, but each of them is something someone made up during a toon that later was shown as a real thing; in other words, a made-up real thing. Now, I'm not completely convinced Made-up Real Things is the best title, but the noun of the article title should directly describe the list items in a tangible way, and so in that sense it's superior to Reality Transitions. — It's dot com 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand. Omnisweater 00:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, please elaborate on why you think that would be a good name. I think it's a poor choice because it doesn't describe the items in the list as much as the process they must have undergone. In other words, the Gremlin is not a reality transition. Limozeen is not a reality transition. They may have undergone a reality transition, but each of them is something someone made up during a toon that later was shown as a real thing; in other words, a made-up real thing. Now, I'm not completely convinced Made-up Real Things is the best title, but the noun of the article title should directly describe the list items in a tangible way, and so in that sense it's superior to Reality Transitions. — It's dot com 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like it too. Omnisweater 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be supported. Acceptance from --Jellote 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC) univeristy.
"Fantasy Comes True"? 
BBG 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Same problem, it doesn't describe the items in the list... in fact, it doesn't even describe anything. — Defender1031★Talk
19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
How about "Imaginative Things Made Real"? That Game Dude 386 
19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The things are imaginary, not imaginative... "Imaginary Things Made Real" would work. — Defender1031★Talk 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. I like it. That Game Dude 386
20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I actually don't think it's THAT good, but it's better IMO than what we have now... — Defender1031★Talk 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, too. That Game Dude 386 20:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's better than what we have now, because the things aren't imaginary. They're real now. "Made Real" suffers from the same problem "Transitions" and "Comes True" do. — It's dot com 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, too. That Game Dude 386
- I actually don't think it's THAT good, but it's better IMO than what we have now... — Defender1031★Talk
- Yeah. I like it. That Game Dude 386
I think we need to isolate the problem with the current name before giving it a new name, so as to properly define the article. I think the problem is it's very confusing- Made-up Real Things, looking at it alone, doesn't explain clearly what the article's about- the name contradicts itself. I disagree with It's dot com on the subject of it describing the list- taken literally, it'd mean something that is both real and fictious at the same time. Therefore, I would propose we find an article name that means, literally "Objects and characters of fictitious origin that have become real," rather than "Objects and characters of fictitious origin that are also real." That Game Dude 386 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The oxymoron in the original title was intentional. We witnessed these things being made up, and yet inexplicably those very things are later shown to be real. — It's dot com 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- One cannot be above and below something at the same time. Neither can something be real and ficticious at the same time. That Game Dude 386 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- But it CAN be fictitiously real! Really, the entire website is fictitious, so does it really matter? It seems REALLY wierd debating whether originally fictiitous, now-real, things in a fictitous cartoon are real or not. :P Just thinking litterrally, here. -Tizye96
- GAH! The paradoxes! @_@ That Game Dude 386 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ya see what I mean? I'm lost. None of this makes sense. I like pie. My brain go boom. -Tizye96
- I don't think the point that something can't be real and fictitious at the same time holds water. For one, this is a website about dumb animal characters that occasionally shows Homestar with a mustache in the same scene as the regular Homestar. Second, these things aren't real and fictitious at the same time. If they're on this page, we're saying they're unequivocally real in the context of the main Homestar Runner universe—but that at one point they were made up. — It's dot com 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- How does this explanation work: "Things, or characters, that were originally presented as figments of another character's imagination that have later been seen to exist in that very same character's reality."? Now, that definition may be shortened to a title-sized statement- "Imaginary Things Found In Reality" or "Imaginary Things Made Real" would both sum up the enormous sentance in 5 words or less... why not use one of those names? That Game Dude 386 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- How does this explanation work: "Things, or characters, that were originally presented as figments of another character's imagination that have later been seen to exist in that very same character's reality."? Now, that definition may be shortened to a title-sized statement- "Imaginary Things Found In Reality" or "Imaginary Things Made Real" would both sum up the enormous sentance in 5 words or less... why not use one of those names? That Game Dude 386
- I don't think the point that something can't be real and fictitious at the same time holds water. For one, this is a website about dumb animal characters that occasionally shows Homestar with a mustache in the same scene as the regular Homestar. Second, these things aren't real and fictitious at the same time. If they're on this page, we're saying they're unequivocally real in the context of the main Homestar Runner universe—but that at one point they were made up. — It's dot com 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ya see what I mean? I'm lost. None of this makes sense. I like pie. My brain go boom. -Tizye96
- GAH! The paradoxes! @_@ That Game Dude 386
- But it CAN be fictitiously real! Really, the entire website is fictitious, so does it really matter? It seems REALLY wierd debating whether originally fictiitous, now-real, things in a fictitous cartoon are real or not. :P Just thinking litterrally, here. -Tizye96
- One cannot be above and below something at the same time. Neither can something be real and ficticious at the same time. That Game Dude 386
Cleanup
Do we need to clean up this page? Like apply the regular "[[Instance]] — Description" thing here? I think we should. Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
