Talk:X, I mean X, I mean X

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 23:06, 12 April 2007

Article inclusion

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. — It's dot com 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Heimstern Läufer 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this works as a separate article, but the name could use work. -- 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)

I obvously want to keep the page as a seperate article (I made 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. --DorianGray 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I got it! Let me go change the explanation of the page Drippingyellowmadness ^talk 20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep with a rename. -- Super Martyo boing! 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There, I changed the explanation to, "In certain occasions, a character will say one thing, say a filler word or group of filler words, say the same thing, say a similar filler word or group of filler words, and finally decide to say the same thing a third time." Drippingyellowmadness ^talk 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we on our way to agreement? It definately sounds like it. -- Super Martyo boing! 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep with a new name. The thing 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article name

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)

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)

"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)

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 agree with renaming it. When I made this page I was actually hoping that someone would rename it. Drippingyellowmadness ^talk 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I like the idea of Double Takes as a new name. -- Super Martyo boing! 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About renaming to Double Takes, let me go make a redirection page now. Drippingyellowmadness ^talk 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Double Takes" is not a good name. Double means two, and this page describes a joke of three things. I'm not so sure about "Triple Takes" either. The more I think about it, the more I think the current title is not so bad. — It's dot com 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if we moved it to double takes, this would only be a section. We would also include any double takes in the H*R universe. -- Super Martyo boing! 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Like what, for instance? This page currently describes a very specific joke. Perhaps double takes could have their own page, but I don't think this page should be combined with it. — It's dot com 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I sort of realized that as I was typing. Thanks for the reality check. -- Super Martyo boing! 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I don't like the current title is because only one of the three appearances is formatted exactly like "X, I mean X, I mean X." The appearance in Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 9.2 is pretty close, but still not exactly the same. I vote for Triple Takes. — Has Matt? (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think "X, I mean X, I mean X" is more specific and descriptive than "Triple Takes", which seems too generic and watered down. — It's dot com 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that one, Triple Takes is not a very good name either, but I would rather have Triple Takes than the current title, which does not apply to two of the three appearances on the page. — Has Matt? (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it applies to all of them. It almost exactly matches two of the three, and in the remaining one the gist is the same. — It's dot com 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dot Com. Keep current name at least provisionally unless a far superior name is proposed. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. A "double take" is a repeated reaction. This is, however, a triple action. "Take" is an abominable word for this. Something along the lines of "triple Assertions" or "Multiple Repetitions" (that sucks) might be better. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)