Talk:Homestar Runner 20th Anniversary Show

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 03:27, 24 July 2018

The Show

If anyone's going tomorrow, try to do these. You don't have to do it if you don't want to, but it would be very helpful:

• 1. Try to write down or record everything that happens.
• 2. Take some high-quality photos to put on the page.

Also, soon we're gonna have to split this into two pages (like Limozeen Live!) and make this a disambiguation. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Goes for the Gold

Now that the toon has been recorded, should we have a seperate article for the toon? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 18:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've created a transcript on the sandbox using the recording. I don't think it's ready for primetime, so I think we should leave off until it gets released onto the site or uploaded to YouTube. - Catjaz63 18:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There are pages for stuff like this, and we have the transcript for it, so... I don't see why not. I'ma vote yes. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

But the thing about this toon is that we're pretty sure it'll release on the website or onto YouTube sometime soon. Dad's Garage & Friends we'll probably never see the light of day of. - Catjaz63 04:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Another yes vote from me. Assuming it's going to be released on the wedsite, that doesn't mean we can't get a leg up on the pile. -- ■■   PURPLE  WRENCH   ■■ 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If we do create an article, what would it be called? "Homestar Runner Goes For The Gold! (animated version)"? "Homestar Runner and The Brothers Strong"? "20th Anniversary Toon"? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I would think we'd call it The Homestar Runner Goes For The Gold! (toon), like we you guys did for Where My Hat Is At?. Either that or we put all the toon information on The Homestar Runner Goes For The Gold!, and move its current content to the Fun Facts section. I could see either possibility. Also, I vote yes. Although we might need a little more transcript cleanup first. Lira (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears Gfd has tried to make the page already, so I guess I'll have to revive this discussion. In its current state, I do not feel the page is in any state to be released. The transcript is full of mistakes due to inaudible lines due to the audience and some information that should be filled is in filled in yet. Unless we put a notice that an unofficial source was used, like over-the-top-ly did so in the Sandbox, I don't think it is at all in any state to be expanded into its own page until it's released officially. Maybe inside the page of the event, but I don't think it's worth its own independent page as of now. - Catjaz63 05:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

I've noticed that there have been a number of recent edits designed to avoid linking to this disambiguation page. However, rewording sentences to so that there are places to hang both links ends up making the wording awkward and clunky. Since the two performances are nearly always both linked, I propose merging both articles here in order to do away with the redundant linking. What do people think? — Defender1031*Talk 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Information for both shows could easily fit on one page. I'm leaning towards a yes on merging, though I'm curious: should both dates be appended to the title? Every other page in Category:Interviews and Public Appearances that has a specific known date has that date in their title, but as far as I'm aware this would be the first with two specific dates if it does get merged. DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 18:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd leave the existing titles with the dates as part of them as redirects to the proper section on this page. I wouldn't put the dates in the merged title though. — Defender1031*Talk 19:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd lean towards no, since they have a different description and different performances. They're different enough that leaving them seperate is fine. I also think that the disambiguation page should be linked to, since it's different from most disambiguations. (For example, no articles should link to Baby, because that can refer to multiple things. On the other hand, Homestar Runner 20th Anniversary Show is a convenient way to link to both pages at the same time.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Disambiguation pages should not be linked to, full stop. I've noticed that the Wiki is more lax about this guideline than it was when it was active. RickTommy (edits) 23:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not? (I understand in most cases, but not for the 20th Anniversary disambiguation.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

An alternate suggestion would be making this into a real, albeit short page, describing that there were two of these appearances and linking to both for more information, and linking here when referring to both collectively. — Defender1031*Talk 23:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good. It's not really much of a disambiguation anyways. Support. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Gfd: There are no exceptions to that guideline. And how is it different from other disambiguations?

DeFender: Pseudo-disambiguations are still disambiguations. I'm in favour of a merge.

Also, I still don't understand the Wiki's change in attitude about linking to disambiguations. I have had no choice but to change a disambig to a pseudo-disambig because of this issue.

RickTommy (edits) 01:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

1. I explained above why it's different. The disambiguation Baby shouldn't be linked to in an article, because it can refer to multiple things. The readers might ask, "which baby was supposed to be linked to?" On the other hand, Homestar Runner 20th Anniversary Show refers to two related things, so it's a convenient way to link to both at the same time. There's no question of "Which show was supposed to be linked to?", because the answer is obviously both. Compare these sentences: "This toon is another appearance of the baby." "This toon was presented at both Homestar Runner 20th Anniversary Shows." The Baby link is ambiguous, but the 20th Anniversary link obviously refers to both shows. Disambiguation or not, I see no problem with linking to it. What's wrong with one exception to a guideline?

2. Also, pseudo-disambiguations are not still disambiguations. Biz Cas Fri, for example, contains information regarding the three toons; therefore, it can be linked to, and is not simply a disambiguation.

3. I don't understand the attitude of linking to disambiguations either, if the disambiguation refers to multiple things. But if the disambiguation refers to one thing, I don't understand the attitude of not linking to a disambiguation. Would you care to explain why you don't want to link to these disambiguations?

So, here's what I think should happen: the pages could stay seperate, but parts of them could be merged into this page. So this page will no longer be a disambiguation, and it will contain information that applies to both shows, while the two other pages will only contain information regarding that specific show. This way, they can be merged and seperate at the same time, in a way. The same can be done for Limozeen Live!. What do you guys think? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 05:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a good idea? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)