Talk:Crap

From Homestar Runner Wiki

"Crapfully yours" a running gag?

Is this a valid running gag? I wrote up a whole article on it (in particular referencing the email where he finally informed viewers that signing emails in that way was not required) and Jay deleted it in the middle of the night, instead of moving it here. This action is contrary to the idea of Wiki. The article is lost forever now, but at least we can decide if the decision was right and whether it should be reposted.

• The STUFF page is for Fun Facts, not deleted articles. Anyway, the "crap" page as it formerly existed was very disorganized and included many non sequiturs. And all those redirects were unnecessary even if we'd kept it. --Jay (Gobble) 19:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That is a matter of opinion... you haven't given any other Wiki users the chance to see it and decide for themselves. Plus, any issues would probably have been fixed by other users quickly. I think this one deserves a vote, and I'd like to know where to vote on it if not here?
    • Okay, fine. Reinstate Talk:Crap if it suits you. --Jay (Gobble) 19:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Decline I don't even need to see the article in question to know what a load of crap it is. Its already noted in the 3 Wishes facts that Strong Bad doesn't like the "crap" signitures. A whole article is overkill. Donny vs Universe
• Yes, it's a running gag, but I don't think there needs to be a whole article about it. Maybe just list it in the running gags section or something. --Upset_Your_Balance 14:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It is a running gag and deserves its own page, though i agree the one that Jay deleted was poorly done. If 11.01 deserves its own page, crafully yours crap in all of its forms does as well --Tony Stony 14:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DELORTED! Crapfully yours, no. Crap, maybe. Ya, crap is a running gag. Crapfully yours isn't. That's like saying Dear Strong Bad is a running gag! Cheatachu72 00:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New version of "Crap" page

I actually did the work to create a new "Crap" page before noticing that there was already a discussion page on this topic. I made a big effort to ensure that the page is well-organized and useful. Please add to it and further organize the list - in the first draft, I didn't take the time to organize the references chronologically. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)