Talk:Garden Hose

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 03:59, 9 January 2009

[edit] Spoons

HRWIKI: Spoons was made for this exact occurrence, it seems. Common Wiki Practices say that something needs 3 mentions for a running gag, and Spoons policy says that objects used in a standard fashion don't count. That leaves us with only one possible instance of this running gage. This seems to me to be along the same lines as the Rising Sun headband in that TBC just reuse the same flash object to save time. I move Delete!!
Flashfight 08:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a good job why this article should stay. It's an item, used several times, one of them is in a weird way. Keep. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per E.L. Cool. Heimstern Läufer 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Keep. --Stux 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got to disagree, to quote Spoons: "items which are terribly common and mundane and which are never or rarely used in any sense beyond what would be considered normal within the Homestar Runner Universe should not get an article." The Manual of Style says any ordinary objects take "five to ten" references if they are not integral to the plot of any story. The fact of the matter, according to our stated policy, this does not deserve an article. Flashfight 08:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, inclusion guidelines, such as spoons, aren't really hard and fast policy. Secondly, there's enough that's beyond the purely mundane here to justify an article (sucking bandwidth, especially, although making a river is rather odd, too). Heimstern Läufer 08:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would very much like to hear the definition of 'mundane use of a garden hose' that somehow excludes propelling water, propelling water and propelling water. Also, I don't believe there's any precedent for an unnamed, unmentioned (never spoken about in dialog), and frankly mundane object having it's own page. Including this would be akin to having a page listing all the times Strong Bad's table is seen, based solely on it's one 'special' appearance (virus). This move is simply unprecedented, by your own admission contrary to stated wiki policy. No argument seems even remotely compelling. Flashfight 09:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You wanted spacial uses? It's a green Garden hose, yet it was never seen near any gardens, flowers and so on. The same hose is used to fill a concessions stand, make a "river", hose down a character and suck bandwidth. Strong Bad uses his table as only a table. It was once broken and once became a vector grid. If this hose belonged to Marzipan and was only used to water her plants, then it would have been considered "mundane use". — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're investing too much power into the name of the article. It's just a green house. It's never been called a garden hose, and by your own admission it has never been used in a garden. It seems to me that it's far more a hose than a 'garden' hose. Given that it's garden-itude is a faulty argument at best, it's uses that are not contrary to the use of any hose can only be called mundane. Flashfight 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But you're investing too much power in the Spoon argument. It's just a guideline, anyway. Everyone else thinks this page is interesting enough to stay an article. -DAGRON 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If Spoons isn't a 'rule' per se, we can all at least agree with the logical backing for not creating an article for Strong Bad's Table, let's say. Given that, we need to figure out what differentiates this hose from that table. It's not an inside joke of odd usage, since there's only one not mundane use of a hose. And the argument that says that anyone's vote should be swayed by what 'everyone else thinks' is foolhardy. Flashfight 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if we're quoting guidelines, this is from HRW:IG: "Page content relating to a H*R-specific item: Needs only one appearance in Homestar Runner toons, as long as it played an important role in the plot (see above)." The above part is "must be of at least moderate importance to the toon (i.e. not just in the background and never mentioned)". The table is just a table. The hose is a bit more then just a background object. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. A hose is not an H*R specific item, at all. I'm sorry but a garden hose is a generic item. So to quote the actual guideline: "Needs at least five to ten appearances and must be of at least moderate importance to the toon (i.e. not just in the background and never mentioned) in half of its appearances." Seems to me four is less than five to ten and 1 is less than half it's appearances. The guidelines you quote simply make the case for deletion stronger. Flashfight 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Flashfight. A garden hose (we don't even know if it's the same one each time) has been used to pipe water three times. That's what hoses are expected to do. One has also been used to pipe bandwidth, but just on one occasion. If the hoses were consistently being used for something other than water, or if their presence were ubiquitous on the site, then either one of those cases would be notable. As it stands, however, they're just hoses, and not (at this time) article-worthy. Remove content and delete page. — It's dot com 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I think the disagreement comes in: First, I think we would probably all agree that the use of the hose in couch patch is quite generic, simply used to hose someone down, while the one in isp is not, used to suck bandwidth. The other two are where the catch is. On the one hand, both uses could be viewed as generic, as they both involve the hose being used to transport water, per what's usual. On the other, the purpose for transporting the water is far from everyday in both situations: in one, it is used to flood out a concession stand; in another, it's used to make a "river" for a safari adventure. So the uses of the hose can be viewed as generic in one sense, and non-generic in another. Heimstern Läufer 07:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The thing I've always found interesting about the hose is that it has no head. No little sprayer nozzle... squeeze handle... sprayer... thing. You know what I mean. It's like a pistol grip, you squeeze it, and the water comes out. I've always found it notable that it's missing, due to the force that it comes out at in the Has Matt? usage. Usually, a hose without a head can't direct its spray, and it just kinda dribbles out. I don't know if it has any importance to the article (maybe it could be mentioned), but I just thought I'd share my observations. --DorianGray 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Differing pressure on a hose can easily be used to make differing pressures. I agree that Has Matt? is obvious hyperbole, but nothing especially notable in a cartoon about stupid animal characters. And on top of that, the only other time we actually see the hose propel water is in theme park, and it only kinda dribbles out. A hose acting like a hose. —Flashfight 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is noticeable, or have any significance in the argument, but we never actually see where the water are coming from. Theres' never a tap. Worth noting? I do not know. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The hose is used in unusual ways. Awexome 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Any more thoughts before we close this? It's been open for about a month and I'd like to close it soon. I can see both arguments here, and don't really have that strong an opinion, one way or another. Just reading the discussion, I would say there appears to be no consensus at this time, so I'm inviting any comments that might sway the discussion. Heimstern Läufer 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hearing none, it seems the result is no consensus to delete. Heimstern Läufer 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I say delete. This is crap. The hose is used in unusual WAY. SINGULAR. IT'S USELESS. I GUESS THIS WAS MORE THAN TWO WORDS. DELETE. Tizye96 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note, this discussion was closed nearly a year ago. This is a fine article. — Defender1031*Talk 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, they CLOSE discutions? Crap. Hey, I just didn't know. Maybe something should be put up that just says "Moron! It's closed!" before I do something stupid like this. Tizye96 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see a blue box on the top of the page that says, "It has been suggested that the content of the page this talk page accompanies should not be a separate article on the wiki", it means the discussion's closed. BBG 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If I DON'T see it? Aight. I can do that. Thanks. Tizye96 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha, it's alright. Nothing is officially "closed" but um, once discussion ends it is best to not unearth it. Unless you are very passionate at the topic... then you can try to "reopen" the discussion. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict! I'll get you Bad Baaad GRRUMBLES!)