HRWiki talk:Often appears in the Homestar Runner universe
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Contents |
[edit] Should we do something about this?
I was the original author of this page, and as such I resoundingly say yes this is a problem that we should fix. Whether out of habit, or laziness, or because it's how people assumed it was supposed to be, our articles are a lot of boring lists. — It's dot com 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- We should definitely aim to fix this. It's been a problem for a long time, regardless of how the trend got started. — Lapper (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I admit that I am part of the problem. Many of the pages I have created were done so before the whole (Flash cartoon/universe/body of work) controversy, so several of them contain the phrase "often appears in Homestar Runner cartoons", a variant which is just as bad. Something must be done to remedy this. — Has Matt? (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm also part of the problem, making the same old sentences on every page. Yes, we should reword the intros of many of these pages. Not all, but most. That way, we can still keep the diversity in writing by having many many different intro sentence things. Bluebry 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't really see why this is such a big deal. I mean, many pages begin with "Somebody is a character of the Homestar Runner universe" and don't see a page for that. --Trogga 03:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] If so, what should we do?
I think we should begin by removing as many of the clichés as we can. Next, we should expand the introductions to give some actual depth (and possibly even anaylsis, if it can be done without speculation) to the articles. — It's dot com 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need to do those two things at the same time, since as you said, sometimes it's the only introductory sentence. Also, I don't know if we should stretch as far as analysis, because we're going to have a tough time keeping that objective. — Lapper (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. But what about in cases where the references are seemingly random and unconnected, such as Eggs? It's easy to avoid the offending phrase when the running gag is fairly specific to one character or one situation, but when the appearances aren't really connected to anything, it gets a little harder. — Has Matt? (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we're going to have to make the intros more interesting. I also think we should remove the "commonly seen in Strong Bad Email" lines (with the exception of these). To me, they sound really stupid and not very creative. If we can turn it into irony, (like, "blah blah blah, which is strange, considering the majority of its appearances were in Strong Bad Emails.") then that's perfect. But right now, I think the best thing to do to fix the problem dot com originally put up is to gather a bunch of users (whether all at one time, or in a "if you have time, fix this page" type of way) and have them rewrite pages to fix them. And newer users (if "caught" using the old boring intro sentence) can be shown this page, and be told to make everything they write to be more diverse and interesting, and maybe given tips. If they don't comply, well, I'm sure someone else will fix it for them. I also think we should give more content to the intros (or as dot com said, depth and analysis). Like, if it's a not-very-known real world item, maybe a short description. There's my two cents. Bluebry 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Underlying Problem
In my opinion, most of these pages need not exist anyway. Regular everyday items that randomly get used by characters just like anyone else might use them are not running gags. These ones are the worst: Bees, Bowler Hats, Butter, Cardboard Boxes, Cinnamon, Diapers, Fire, Peas, Pie, Pizza, Squirrels, Underwear, and (for cryin' out loud) Toilets. Most of these you just can't elaborite much on unless you just outright open with a definition, and that would make this Wiki drift off subject. It's not a dictionary.--Antisexy 03:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some Potential Additions
How many of the articles I wrote deserve to go on this list? (Click on my name and go to the section titled "Articles I Wrote") Bad Bad Guy 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know I suck at writing intros so I won't be too insulted if some of them have to go there. Bad Bad Guy 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dan?
The name "Dan" appears quite often... >__>;; Tina♫ 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added it. Bad Bad Guy 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Excellent idea
Love the idea of pages devoted to fixing up writing style. While we're at it, anyone up for getting rid of awkward use of "being"? Example: "the funniest email being Trogdor..." Homestar Coder
21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let's just replace it with besing... but yes, i think that's probably a grood idea. — Defender1031*Talk 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spread the Word
Is there any good way to tell other users not to write like this anymore? 
BBG 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
