[edit] email #84
When Strong Bad throws the phone to The Geddup Noise, the e-mail on the screen is the e-mail read in #84, kids' book
From: geddup noise
Posted on: 20:52, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Arguments for:
- It is mentioned in the response that it was around email 84 that The Geddup Noise "got all big overseas"
- It is a nice aesthetic detail that one might not notice.
- While it is noted in the transcript, most people don't read the transcript unless searching for a particular piece of information.
- You've got to look closely to see that the e-mail is in fact #84. That's not a transcriptive item, it's a trivial item.
Arguments against:
- Already mentioned in transcript, both by name and by number.
Additional comments:
- This shouldn't even be here: it's in the transcript.
- True, but maybe this could be taken out of the transcript and noted in remarks.
- Now that I think of it, it may be more noticable if in Remarks.
- It should not be noted in remarks. There is nothing about the item that can't be contained in the transcript.
- Who reads transcripts anyway?
- In addition, Strong Bad mentions email 84, so it is expected that email 84 would be on the screen. When I watched it the first time, the scene went by faster than I could read the Compy's screen, but I knew in the back of my mind that it was probably email 84. Lo and behold, it is. This would only be noteworthy if it turned out to be a different email.
- Any expert in H*R would know that it's email #84, but not everyone. It's our duty as a knowledge base to note things like this for people who are less "into" H*R to find out.
- It is noted where it belongs: in the transcript
- Yes, but not the actual number. Unless someone automatically knows #84 is kids book, a browser would have to bother looking it up or assuming that its #84.
- What, is that the problem? The number can easily be put in the transcript... which I have now just done.
- Number's in the transcript now? Good. Just the comprimise I was thinking of. I'll decline this fun fact now.
- It's fun. It's a fact. It's a remark. Why shouldn't it be in remarks???
- It's not that fun, because it's exactly what one would expect. It is a fact, which is why it's in the transcript, and because it's in the transcript, our longstanding custom is that it not be in the remarks.
- Suppose this fact made it through the process... would we then take the mention out of the transcript? That seems counterproductive. And if it's in the transcript, why should it be noted again? There's nothing else really notable about it.
- The average fan only visits HRWiki to get a specific piece of info, or to read the fun facts and easter eggs. The whole idea of the fun facts section is that you don't have to read the transcript to get interesting titbits like this.
- That's beside the point. The fact is that someone looking for this info should be expected to be able to find it in the transcript. On something like this, he or she should also know to look there. Doing it differently, however, would require a massive policy shift, which I don't think is the scope of this STUFF page.
- No, it's exactly the point. The fun facts are supposed to be things you might not have noticed... for example I didn't notice this. If you were "looking for this info" you would surely already have noticed. Leaving it in the transcript would mean you would only know if you'd noticed at the time, or if you read through the transcript. This is exactly why we have fun facts in the first place. Why not just confine all fun facts to the transcript and say "if someone was looking for this info, they could find it in the transcript"? Gosh. If anything, noting it in the transcript would be the policy shift.
- Apparently, that's not correct. If you truly think the policy should change, you should bring it up on the standards talk page or somewhere that isn't going to be archived away in a week or two.
- "It is difficult to define everything that a fun fact could be. A fun fact might appear in the form of a bit of dialogue, an object in the background of a toon, a graphic or a musical riff." "These include non-obvious "did you notice?" plot details (that are not noted in the transcript) and general comments about the characters and locations in the toon." - these both seem to describe this fact perfectly. I'm not sure what policy shift you're thinking of... this would not be the only time a fun fact had also been noted in the transcript.
- How about we mantion in the transcript that the email is for kids, and in the fun facs, that for kids is email number 84.
- This has already been answered on the line right above your comment.
- What that is noted in the transcript, is what we see/hear. We can't see nor hear that for kids is number 84. There for, this bit should be a fun fact.
- You can see and hear it. You can see that it's the Compy, not the Lappy. You can read the text, even in real time. Yes, it goes by fast, but not so fast that it's illegible. You can hear Strong Bad say "email 84".
- Although the fact is redundent for appearing in two different locations and should be removed, it doesn't hurt to have it in both locations.
- By deleting this fact you're just making it harder for people who both don't know this and the high percentage of people who don't read the transcript.
- If someone really cared about learning this knowledge, they could easily, whether it is located in the fun facts or transcript.
- I suggested this fact and I just like to say I love seeing such a livley debate over something I thought was just a good note. You guys are great! :)
- I was curious if the email on the screen was actually #84. I would've printed screen, but my image maker is broken so i checked the wiki (And many people don't know how to print screen) I rarely read the transcript, so i went down to the fun facts, and it wasn't there, so I decided I wouldn't bother searching for it on another page right now. The fun fact section is probably the most read section, and this should be there.
- I don't want to be insulting to users such as whoever is immediately above, and forgive the Supreme-Court tone, but I must object to the alarming precedent represented by some of the comments here. The argument that "anything worth noting should be in Fun Facts, since nobody reads the transcript" I find apalling. I don't want to sound harsh, but if somebody isn't willing to check the transcript, they simply don't want badly enough to find out. The transcript is the most important part of the article; it's the primary source for what's-in-the-email. The Fun Facts are supposed to "bat cleanup" for the transcript; to catch anything it left out, and point out connections you might not be aware of. Although my philosophy is typically to include rather than exclude information, I must object on principle.
[ Back to STUFF index ]
|