Talk:X, I mean X, I mean X

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 20:17, 12 April 2007

Do we really need this article? It seems a bit unnecessary to me and a poor running gag. And it doesn't make sense: Homestar was just being his usual confused self and Strong Bad didn't seem to be rebuking anything. He was emphasising his negative response. – The Chort 15:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this article and am glad someone made it finally, (I myself was actually considering making it, but never got around to it). Seems as though the Brothers Chaps would use this running gag again. It just needs a different name and some rewording. kai lyn 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But could this just be a coincidence? I'm not sure if this is relevant enough to merit an article. – The Chort 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chort's quote: "Homestar was just being his usual confused self and Strong Bad didn't seem to be rebuking anything. He was emphasising his negative response." Neither of those things takes away the fact that this is indeed a running gag. Drippingyellowmadness ^talk 16:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think they're coincidences. I do agree with you, (The Chort) that they are not, however, related to one another, like the DNA Evidence examples (if I'm not being too speculative here). This page is more like a list of times this happens, like "Why Come?" or "For Brains".

Instead of the intro as it is right now, (it uses the word "rebuke", which doesn't quite fit in the contexts of these appearances), say something else, like "There have been a few occasions where a character will preform a double take (or in the case of this running gag, a triple take) in his speech." Although "double take" isn't exactly a correct classification of these reactions either. kai lyn 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep the content in its own article. I'm not crazy about the name, but I don't know what I would suggest to improve it. — It's dot com 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep... still trying to think of a better title. Threefold repetition is coming to mind, but I think it's a bit too generic and sounds too much like something that belongs at the end of a hymn. Heimstern Läufer 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this works as a separate article, but the name could use work. "Triple Take" sounds good, but I wonder if there's something better we're just not thinking of. -- Tom 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the last one was either Strong Bad putting emphasis on it, or maybe he was imitating Homestar. -- Super Martyo boing! 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the event this article is kept, I propose we rename this article as "Double Takes", with a section for any double takes and a section for triple takes, such as the ones on the article. I wouldn't mind having that as a "word running gag". My main problem earlier was that the page seemed poorly thought out and vague. I mean, the title sounds like a cheesy rap record. – The Chort 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that name. Besides, these articles grow fast. Look at this. · · T²|_Things 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. That way, this page could be a little more useful. -Brightstar Shiner 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I obvously want to keep the page as a seperate article (I made it), but I agree with renaming it. When I made this page I was actually hoping that someone would rename it. Also, I would like a suggestion for how to change ine explanation. Even I don't like it, especially that "rebuked" part (that one has its own spreadsheet, even). Drippingyellowmadness ^talk 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all the Keeps so far. The name's not great, but it's no worse than Best/Worst X bucks I ever spent. --DorianGray 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I got it! Let me go change the explanation of the page. Drippingyellowmadness ^talk 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)