From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 02:28, 23 February 2009 by Erwin Morland (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search


BIG Clean up

I have removed several items that now have complete and informative articles to explain them. This should not pose a problem for a total H*R noobie who comes to this Wiki looking for info, as they should find the article before the glossary anyway. - Dr Haggis - Talk 01:21, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)


The anchors are not working. I'm not sure I know the proper formatting for anchors in MediaWiki. Anybody? — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 12:50, 16 Sep 2004 (MST)

I'm moving this off the main page to here, made the glossary look cluttered. Plus I think this kind of discussion goes on the Talk page.

  • I thought it was 20XP6! -- DragonDoom5

However, I'm pretty sure it's 20X6 with no P. --racerx_is_alive 12:58, 16 Sep 2004 (MST)


Is the definition of the word "Email" even necessary? --oddtodd 00:26, 17 Nov 2004 (MST)

Seconded. --GregHosting 03:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. we all know what an email is. Sbmaniac
What about the people who don't, though? You must remember, we are writing for a large audience, not just the tech-knowledgable. (I know that line is worded strange.) Bluebry 00:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But this is a glossary of H*R specific terms, of which email is not. SaltyTalk! 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but it is an extremely common word in the H*R universe. I mean, it's like Homestar saying "bread", and half of the users don't know what bread means. If it doesn't stay, I think it should be merged with whatever Strong Bad Email's entry is, if it has one. Bluebry 00:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Email" isn't even listed in the Glossary. --DorianGray
People don't know what bread means? HRfan222


Is the definition of intelligence/intelligent necessary? Isn't this glossary for words that would not be found outside of h*r? mibluvr13 09:04, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)

Already take care of. Sbmaniac
I would expect so, considering this topic is over a year old. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


The letter X may be pronounced "Xty" but it isn't its name. If we're going by how it's pronounced should we change "404'd" to "Four oh Foured"? No. It's just X. The chaps are using it as a number. The if the number was 2026, we wouldn't write 2ty. It's 20. So if anything it's X0. Not Xty. And where is this other crap coming from " X-T, XT, Exty, X0". No one ever refers to it as this. And if they do it's wrong. This wiki explains, not the way the fans talk about the website. I don't want to have an editing battle or anything. So I want to come with a conscientious with you guys. --Droffats

How about we say that "When used in the tens place, X is pronounced "Xty"". --homestar3.14 13:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Should VOIP get a real-world definition (Voice Over Internet Protocol)? A related question is whether it should be a Real-World Reference in Teen Girl Squad Issue 1. S Gleason 18:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Because that definition of the word has nothing to do with its use in Teen Girl Squad or Homestar Runner. This is an H*R glossary, not a general glossary. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 04:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Will you advise on whether it should be a Real-World Reference? I hate to belabor the point, but I feel there should be an acknowledgement that the BC used a real-world term as a sound effect. S Gleason 05:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's just a random onomatopœia that TBC threw in. We wouldn't mention that the FOM in "BAOW FOM FROOSH" can stand for "Foundation of Mathematics", for example, why mention this one? --phlip TC 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it was random, but I will let it go. I am very new here. Thank you for being polite, phlip. S Gleason 06:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure it needs a definition here, as it's a legitimate word. (Legitimate meaning it was in fairly common use at the time, which it still is.) See — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Where in the H*R world or pretty much anywhere did you hear this? Sbmaniac 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
bedtime story. SaltyTalk! 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, what a good email that was. Ok back on task. I think it would be a good idea.But, try to make the defnition sorta...i don't know...revovle around the Denzel. Sbmaniac
I was talking about getting rid of the one that's already on the page. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 22:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I say be Bold and do it. Sbmaniac 23:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The movement in Talk:Neologisms is calling for a merge with this page. I'm all for it, but after looking at this page, I don't think it is ready for a well formatted page like Neologism (don't mind the templates at the top) to be just dumped in this mess of a page. So here is a quick to do list:

  • Better opening: It was written in the old Tavi times when we didn't have such a high standards.
  • Links: Some of the items here already have pages for themsleves.
  • Trimming: things like "Bumdumbourge" that only appeared once and which we have no real definition of.
  • More encyclopedic: Things like "CHALLENGE!!!: A favorite word (and pastime) of Stinkoman." should confirm to the same standards as HRWiki:Glossary and be worded like "challenge (n.): Stinkoman's favorite pastime.".

I propose this page for Community Cleanup Week as it's a high visibility linked from the Main Page. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was working on this for a while, so do you think it still needs more cleanup? It could use more words possibly, but I can't think of any at the moment. -Brightstar Shiner 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't like the opening... It sounds kind of... kiddie, somehow. But I don't know how to reword it. --DorianGray 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I. This is frustrating... -Brightstar Shiner 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wrote a new intro and I think it's okay. What do you think? -Brightstar Shiner 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Lookin' great! I took out some stuff (I don't think it's too encyclopedic to write with the 2nd person perspective) and added in a "see also" section. I'm glad this page is getting a major clean-up (I kept meaning to attend to this page, but kept putting it off). kai lyn 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, kai. I wrote the new intro off the top of my head, so I didn't expect it to be perfect. I think if E.L. Cool comes over to show his approval (since he's the one who started this), we can remove the cleanup tag. -Brightstar Shiner 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I just have one problem with the list above — Links: Some of the items here already have pages for themsleves — I don't think a brief definition is all that bad. I think we can keep some words here that already have articles, (for those who use this page as their primary reference). kai lyn 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I like this page as it is right now, personally. Are there any words we should add or get rid of before we remove the tag? -Brightstar Shiner 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno right now. As they come to mind, people can add 'em in. We should just focus on making this page uniform for now, as opposed to adding/baleeting new words. Also, (and I'm not being wise here; I really am asking), what's the point with merging Neologisms with this page? This page is neologisms! (This isn't directed at you, Brightstar; this's a general question). kai lyn 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comment on that same talk page. Every word on that page is also here, almost word-for-word. So by "merging" it, we would be deleting Neologisms and not doing anything to Glossary. -Brightstar Shiner 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah... Like turning "Neologisms" into a redirect? I thought people wanted, like, a "Neologisms" section at the bottom of this page! (But that doesn't even make sense!) Okay, I get it now. kai lyn 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work! I want to give a good cheer to Loafing and DarkAlex, but especially to Brightstar Shiner and 4kai2lyn6 for great clean up they did in only two days of consecutive work. the page looks wonderful and the has-been Neologism page is now redirected to it. It happens a lot to me that I propose something but never actually go to do it myself, but I couldn't have done a better job! Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All Up Ons

Forgive me for dropping in unannounced, but I always took, "the ladies will be all up ons" to mean not that, "the ladies will be great," but that, "the ladies will be in an uncontrollably makey-outey state." For example, the Ab-Abber 2000 does not turn the ladies in the vicinity into great ladies, but rather your presence after usage now puts the ladies into an excited state. Hope this is the right way to bring up such a point --- it is my first attempt at wiki-ing. -kielejocain

Umm, yeah, I agree... it doesn't make any sense as listed. In addition, the page that it links to has a different definition. I'm gonna go ahead and change it. DeFender1031 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Poopaw"

Poopaw is what Strong Bad calls his grandfather. RocketMasterZ 07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it now? With what can you back that up? --Jay stuck at home (Talk) 08:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools