Talk:Strong Bad's Computers Surpassing Their Assumed Capabilities

From Homestar Runner Wiki

So this may need a rename

The "speculations" thing is a reference to animal and I’d like to keep it if possible, though it is a bit awkward the way it appears now. Any suggestions? — Defender1031*Talk 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should be putting silly references to sbemails in our article names. This is especially true given that this article does not mention the email that the reference comes from at all. It would be confusing to new readers, and doesn't look terribly professional. Sure, this is a Wiki about a cartoon full of dumb animal characters, but sometimes we need to draw the line at the silliness. So specifications all the way. --Jay (Talk) 18:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jay. We know where the reference comes from, but I don't think references make good page titles. -132.183.4.6 19:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point... we do on occasion, but where it fits. Let me ask a different way, we don't actually have a list of technical specifications for the computers. It really IS kinda speculation about the capabilities of the computers, albeit based on their real-world equivalents. That said, i don't think that "Strong Bad's Computer Exceeding Its Technical Specifications" is the way to go either. (Not still set on keeping "speculation" in the title, just saying the proposed alternative isn't correct either.) I also think that since it's about multiple computers, the title should be pluralized. I'm thinking that it needs a concise form of "Strong Bad's computers doing more than it seems they should be able to". Maybe like "Strong Bad's Computers Surpassing Their Assumed Capabilities"? — Defender1031*Talk 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good, Defender. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I'm saying DeFender's suggestion is bad or anything - not at all - but you shouldn't move a page that has active discussion and no consensus. (No, this is not hypocrisy. When I moved the page, there was no discussion, active or otherwise. I believed that the current title (with "speculations") was a mistake, not a deliberate reference!) --Jay (Talk) 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. I too saw the move as premature, despite even that it was a move to the name I suggested. All in good time. Jay, you're not saying my suggestion is bad, but you didn't give any input as to whether it's good either. Cause it'd be nice to get consensus closed on this one. — Defender1031*Talk 16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)