Editing Talk:Quality Time

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
This page is 36 kilobytes long.
Current revision Your text
Line 126: Line 126:
They've already made a reference to one of their long breaks through an "explanation" contained within the fourth wall ([[Weclome Back]]), and I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing it again in this toon. As it stands, though, it's not as obvious as it was in Weclome Back, and there is fair disagreement among all of our opinions, so it's best just to put no fact in the article and let people believe whatever they want to believe. —[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]]
They've already made a reference to one of their long breaks through an "explanation" contained within the fourth wall ([[Weclome Back]]), and I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing it again in this toon. As it stands, though, it's not as obvious as it was in Weclome Back, and there is fair disagreement among all of our opinions, so it's best just to put no fact in the article and let people believe whatever they want to believe. —[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]]
-
I'm often amazed at what great lengths people on here go to arguing whether something is a reference or not. As far as I know, none of us know TBC personally, so practically all listed references are just speculation.  There's probably at least 20 that we say are intentional references that really aren't and vice versa.  Thusly, it's irrelevant whether or not it's intentional.  If something in a toon makes people think about something else in another toon, then it's worth mentioning even if it is sheer coincidence.  In this case, the connection between Homestar locked in a closet for 3 weeks and the baby break for X weeks hadn't occurred to me at all, and when I saw it on here I thought "Hey, that's a good point."  I still kind of think it's coincidence, but why can't good points be part of an encyclopedia article?--[[User:Antisexy|Antisexy]] 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
+
I'm often amazed at what great lengths people on here go to arguing whether something is a reference or not. As far as I know, none of us know TBC personally, so practically all listed references are just speculation.  There's probably at least 20 that we say are intentional references that really aren't and vice versa.  Thusly, it's irrelevant whether or not it's intentional.  If something in a toon makes people think about something else in another toon, then it's worth mentioning even if it is sheer coincidence.  In this case, the connection between Homestar locked in a closet for 3 weeks and the baby break for X weeks hadn't occurred to me at all, and when I saw it on here I thought "Hey, that's a good point."  I still kind of think it's coincidence, but why can't good points be part of an encyclopedia article?--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:So what you're saying is that since we can't get it perfect we may as well not try our best cause we're gonna fail anyway, is that it? No, while I agree that we're never gonna get it 100% of the time, it's still worth doing the best we can, hence we do. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:So what you're saying is that since we can't get it perfect we may as well not try our best cause we're gonna fail anyway, is that it? No, while I agree that we're never gonna get it 100% of the time, it's still worth doing the best we can, hence we do. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
::No.  I'm saying that it doesn't always have to be "This IS what TBC wanted to do!"  If we notice an interisting point that someone else might not have noticed, coincidence or not, we should include it.--[[User:Antisexy|Antisexy]] 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
+
::No.  I'm saying that it doesn't always have to be "This IS what TBC wanted to do!"  If we notice an interisting point that someone else might not have noticed, coincidence or not, we should include it.--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::We ''do'' do that, on occasion, if enough people feel the inherent speculation is outweighed by how interesting the item is. If we did that all the time, however, our articles would be stuffed full of nonsense, and so we have to draw a line somewhere. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::We ''do'' do that, on occasion, if enough people feel the inherent speculation is outweighed by how interesting the item is. If we did that all the time, however, our articles would be stuffed full of nonsense, and so we have to draw a line somewhere. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
::::I understand that, but I don't think the line gets drawn far enough sometimes, because we're too concerned with whether or not it was intentional.  Like I said above, this particular fact is something I think is very interesting and should be included in the article for the non-dorks who don't argue about it on the talk page, but I still think it's coincidence--[[User:Antisexy|Antisexy]] 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
+
::::I understand that, but I don't think the line gets drawn far enough sometimes, because we're too concerned with whether or not it was intentional.  Like I said above, this particular fact is something I think is very interesting and should be included in the article for the non-dorks who don't argue about it on the talk page, but I still think it's coincidence--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
:::::We shouldn't be counting weeks to decide whether or not to include it.  If it was intentional, I doubt they counted weeks. (Well, I guess they are, but for a much diffrent reason.)--[[User:Antisexy|Antisexy]] 04:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
+
:::::We shouldn't be counting weeks to decide whether or not to include it.  If it was intentional, I doubt they counted weeks. (Well, I guess they are, but for a much diffrent reason.)--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Why shouldn't we count weeks? I think if they had said "six weeks" then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's not that hard for them to count. The baby's birthday is written down somewhere, and they know what today is. You have to understand, some things just don't have enough support to be included in the article. When that happens, you should take at least some comfort in the fact that it is being recorded here on the talk page. People who want the in-depth scoop on toons should always read the respective articles' discussion pages. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Why shouldn't we count weeks? I think if they had said "six weeks" then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's not that hard for them to count. The baby's birthday is written down somewhere, and they know what today is. You have to understand, some things just don't have enough support to be included in the article. When that happens, you should take at least some comfort in the fact that it is being recorded here on the talk page. People who want the in-depth scoop on toons should always read the respective articles' discussion pages. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
:::::::I guess I just have a more liberal idea of what should be included, and I don't guess I'll ever change anything.  I just think that fun facts should be more about fun and less about facts.  Especially in here, since there are no facts, other than the occasional interview or commentary with TBC.  We can't exactly cite our sources.--[[User:Antisexy|Antisexy]] 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
+
:::::::I guess I just have a more liberal idea of what should be included, and I don't guess I'll ever change anything.  I just think that fun facts should be more about fun and less about facts.  Especially in here, since there are no facts, other than the occasional interview or commentary with TBC.  We can't exactly cite our sources.--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:I'd argue that encyclopedic articles must be based in fact, and not based in speculation. While in this topic some mild speculation inevitably creeps in, this is too far. If we cannot reach concensus that the time-frame mentioned refers to the "baby break" - and it would seem that the evidence is sparse at best - then we cannot really include it in the article, as it's hearsay and not fact-based in any way. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:I'd argue that encyclopedic articles must be based in fact, and not based in speculation. While in this topic some mild speculation inevitably creeps in, this is too far. If we cannot reach concensus that the time-frame mentioned refers to the "baby break" - and it would seem that the evidence is sparse at best - then we cannot really include it in the article, as it's hearsay and not fact-based in any way. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
:Antisexy: That's not true. Some things are ''clear'' references, some things are borderline, and some things we've almost certainly made up along the way. On top of that, we don't agree on which things fall into the categories I just described. We have to draw a line somewhere, and we do the best we can. It's perfectly reasonable to exclude those things that a consensus of editors don't agree should be in an article. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
+
:72.161.170.161: That's not true. Some things are ''clear'' references, some things are borderline, and some things we've almost certainly made up along the way. On top of that, we don't agree on which things fall into the categories I just described. We have to draw a line somewhere, and we do the best we can. It's perfectly reasonable to exclude those things that a consensus of editors don't agree should be in an article. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::(sorry to jump in, but isn't that was [[STUFF]] was created for? --[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]] 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
:::(sorry to jump in, but isn't that was [[STUFF]] was created for? --[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]] 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
::::(not imn most cases - talk page consensus is normally good enough. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) )
::::(not imn most cases - talk page consensus is normally good enough. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) )

Your changes will be visible immediately. If you would like to test or practice editing, please do so in the sandbox. You are encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles; however, bad edits to articles are watched for and will be quickly removed.


CAPTCHA Image
Image Code:
Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
You are required to enter a code from an image in order to perform certain operations. This image is designed to protect the site from vandalism. If the images are too obscured to read, just give it your best shot and a new image will be shown next time. If you are visually impaired or limited to text-based browsing, you can contact the site administrator and something can be arranged. The code is not case-sensitive.

The Homestar Runner Wiki is neither owned by nor affiliated with homestarrunner.com. Much of the material presented here is copyrighted by The Brothers Chaps and/or Harmless Junk, Inc. For more information, see the legal stuff page on the official Homestar Runner website. The proprietor of this site asserts that publication of such material on the wiki qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Material on this site that is not copyrighted by The Brothers Chaps (e.g. opinions and mindless chatter) is licensed to the various authors, where indicated, and is released under a Creative Commons Deed, which simply ensures that none of this information may legally be used for commercial purposes.

Personal tools