Talk:Bathroom Privileges

From Homestar Runner Wiki

[edit] privileges?

While it does seem like a fun gag, it would seem to be below the threshold of three appearance to constitute a running gag. And with only two time, it's not exactly common is it? wbwolf (t | ed) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit, this is a case where I personally wish we could be slightly more flexible with the requirement of three: revocation of bathroom privileges is, to my mind, unusual (and funny!) enough that even with only two appearances, the article doesn't look half bad to me (other than needing a better intro). Maybe TBC could help us and put some reference to bathroom privileges in the next update? Please? Heimstern Läufer 01:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd agree with that. I know if we make an exception to the "three appearances limit" here, it'll eventually get cited as precedence on future discussions, but I'd be willing to live with that. And, while I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty sure there's one other gag article with only two appearances... It's not coming to me now, but I'm almost certain it exists. Anyways, the point is, despite falling under the legal limit, I'd be willing to keep this page. --DorianGray 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First, it's a cute gag so we must delete nothing. And secondly, you must be a bad article to get deleted and you're not. And thirdly, the inclusion thingy is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the HRWiki, Miss Bathroom Privileges. (Ten points if anyone knows what i'm parodying). — Defender1031*Talk 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've seen a lot of talkpages in my time, and most of them have people say that if there is at least 3 references, it would be good enough to keep. I only see two on the board now, so I think this page needs to be Deleted. — MichaelXX2 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know if you even took the time to read the previous opinions. — Defender1031*Talk 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw,crap! You're right! I'm sorry... — MichaelXX2 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Def: Pirates of the Carribbean. Barbossa's explanation of the pirate code to Elizabeth. Do I get ten points? Heimstern Läufer 07:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this feels like a throwaway gag that they simply did twice to me. I would delete this page if it were up to me solely, but at the same time, I'm not ADAMANTLY against it, so I won't complain if it's kept. --Jay (Talk) 07:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that SBCG4AP actually counts that much. As a rule of thumb, spin-offs recycle jokes rather than create their own. I haven't played any of the games yet, so I don't know if I would count them as TBC works in their own right - although this is obviously what we do on the wiki, listing them in appearances and all. But even if I accept this, I don't think this article should be kept. "Bathroom privileges" is indeed a very funny phrase, but is it helpful as an article? I don't think it is. The only useful information in it is that it's used in two places. This can easily be covered in inside references and fast forwards. Yes, guidelines, not rules. But unless someone can show me how this article could be helpful, I think it should be deleted. Loafing

I don't see that any article on this wiki can be considered "helpful". That doesn't seem to stop us from having them. Heimstern Läufer 09:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think that most articles on the wiki are helpful. They answer questions like "what in the world does this mean?" and "hasn't he done this before?", and "what did he actually say in that scene?". In that sense, they are very helpful. Loafing 09:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As funny and cute as this page is, I think that unless someone find a third reference, it should be deleted. It's much easier to cross-link the two articles referenced here with Fun Facts. On in Inside References, and the other with Fast Forward. A lot of pages got deleted because of the 3-references rule, some were saved because of that rule, and even few were recreated with the help of it. I don't see why this article should be any different. I know that the 3-reference is not actually a rule, but a guideline, but when dealing with something empiric like a number, where we can actually count the number of references, it's easier to see that this article have no place on the wiki. We can argue if something is "notable" or not, but we can't argue over lack of references. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Having registered all opinions, it seems abundantly clear that no consensus to delete has been reached (even though I do note some very reasonable arguments to do so). Therefore, I've closed the discussion. Heimstern Läufer 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combine?

Personally, I think this article would be best added to the Toilets section, because the two are connected, and usually articles with extremely similar concepts are put together--Palla 23:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] needed?

I really don't think this warrents a page. It has two appearences. The Strong Badia the Free appearences looks like Marzipan revoked all of Homestar's privaleges. cash money ^t_c 01:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Combining that thought with the above notion, has there been other instances where privileges been revoked (not just bathroom)? Alternately, there seems to be a running gag with Strong Bad toilet training The Cheat (e.g. dictionary). As this article stands right now, I don't think it can stand alone, but it might go better combined with something else (either existing or expanding the scope). wbwolf (t | ed) 04:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone that yes, this has already been discussed. It was essentially approved as an exception to the normal rules. This discussion hasn't gone much of anywhere in a month, so if there are no further thoughts soon, I'm going to conclude that the consensus has not changed since above. Heimstern Läufer 08:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)