From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Delete?

I continue to believe that this does not deserve an article. First of all, the Strong Bad Email hiatus section is already covered on Strong Bad Email, and that's where it belongs, not here. As for the current complete hiatus, I don't think there's enough to say. All there is is "the site has been on hiatus since November 2009, with a brief return for April Fool's Day 2010." That's pretty much what it says now, and that's pretty much all the potential it has. If the hiatus ever ends, then it might have a spot on Acknowledged Update Delays, but for now, it does not merit coverage. Delete. Heimstern Läufer 06:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Heimstern here, with same reasons. So, delete as well. ColdReactive 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting article. It does not just cover the Strong bad Email hiatus. I think we should keep as of now. MeltingObject 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
My comment didn't only address the Sbemail hiatus, either. Heimstern Läufer 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
For right now, I would agree that this article doesn't have much information on it. However, the Acknowledge Update Delays page has no information on the current break whatsoever, and Strong Bad Emails only says "They again went on hiatus in October of 2009 and have been since then." I feel that a not insignificant amount of people would come to the wiki to find out about the recent shortage of toons. If we put a few more facts about current projects we know TBC are working on, like Poker Night at the Inventory, I think this might merit its own page, and possibly a main page link as well (to cut down on people posting "Is HR coming back or not?" on talk pages everywhere). Keep. Itama 06:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said at Talk:Main Page#Hiatus page. AUD and this page are entirely different things. The purpose of AUD is to cover instances when, inside of a cartoon, TBC indicate that they know about a delay. This page is, or at least I believe it is, intended to provide fans with information about the delay between major updates. This page could easily be in the HRWiki namespace, and be more aimed at giving users information about the wiki's communication with TBC. I don't think the article as it exists now is up to our standards, but it deserves to exist. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 06:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
An HRWiki-space page on this is totally fine by me. The problem I have is with us writing an mainspace article that's not about content but rather some attempt to explain a lack of content. We don't really know why the hiatus exists; explaining it with things like Poker Night and the Jim Henson movie are actually speculatory (TBC didn't completely stop making cartoons during SBCG4AP, for example). If we want a page to tell confused fans "Here's what we know about what's going on...", I believe the HRWiki space is the proper place for that. Heimstern Läufer 06:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think from my perspective it could do with a bit more information, but it sums up the hiatuses okay and I think most of us are satisfied. In all honesty I do think there should be a page about the hiatuses and this one is adequate as of now. If there is any information left out that you think is necessary then add it.MeltingObject 18:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that addressed at me? If so, I think you've missed my point. I'm not interested in adding information to this article; I believe none of this information is needed in this article, and hence the article itself is not needed. Heimstern Läufer 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving it to the project namespace, although it would need a more specific title than just "Hiatus[es]". — It's dot com 23:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I, like most everyone here, would like to know what is known about the reason(s) for the current hiatus. I have not learned anything from the current state of this article. User:StrongAwesome74/Hiatus has better content for folks wanting to learn something new about what has been going on while there have not been updates to the site, and if a goodly portion of it was incorporated here, I think we'd get a better quality discussion. Right now, it seems like opinions are limited to, "Delete" vs "this article has potential". I can understand why those of the former opinion do nothing to improve the article.. that makes sense.. but what I don't understand is why people of the latter opinion do nothing to improve the article to show us what its potential is. I'm on the fence; convince me and other fence riders with content, you supporters! =] OptimisticFool 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I should clarify that I think the page should be moved and replaced with the "December 2009 to present" section of StrongAwesome's page. We really don't know much more than what's already stated in that section. We have given the Chaps several opportunities to tell us exactly what they're up to if they wanted, but so far they have declined to be specific at all. They've been rather cryptic (which is their right of course). I will say, however, that I get the distinct impression that we should not get our hopes up for a Halloween toon. — It's dot com 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the article's deletion, I think it should stay. In terms of the content, it needs heavy revisions. doctorwho295 14 November 2010

I will change my vote to keep. See section four on this talk page. ColdReactive 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at this article for the first time in a while. My initial reaction is this: it needs to be written more formally and objectively, even if only by a little bit. The first thing that caught my eye was the caption for File:aquashot.png: "How 2011 can be summed up for Homestar Runner". That's uncalled for and it screams whiny to me. This article is too much like an in-depth play-by-play, and less of a concise summary that I think it should be. It focuses more on what hasn't or didn't happen, rather than what has. I don't mean to put a "positive twist" on this subject, that "what has happened" has to talk about the spans where we haven't had updates. This has to change, and I'll step up to the plate to make sure it happens, unless someone can convince me otherwise that it doesn't any any significant changes. Here's a few changes I already have in mind:

  • Change some grammar, phrasing, and wording to make it sound more professional and slightly more consistent.
  • As with StrongBad74's take on the page, move the length of update delays and their records to their own section.
  • For each year, note the dates for each appearance/site update.

Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 18:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. While this hiatus has scared off (sorry for the lack of a better term) many fans, it has become the most important point of discussion to those who are still fans. Even if this page should go, I think there should be, as mentioned above, a HRWIKI-namespace article on the hiatus. We do have HRWiki:Keep your pants on, which addresses when TBC didn't update at the usual time when they were active. I think that page should be rewritten to address this hiatus.
And just incase anyone's wondering: here are my explanations for two of my additions to this article:
You may notice that in "Minor hiatuses", there is a link to a discussion on this Wiki. I know we're not normally supposed to link to discussions in mainspace articles, but it made me laugh how there was so much drama about a hiatus that was short compared to this one.
And the part about the Brothers Chaps not forgetting about Strong Bad Email: I find it hypocritical when someone works on a project, abandons it without saying whether it's finished or not, then a while later, does something that shows they know full well they can continue. RickTommy (edits) 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And still, over a year later, this page largely concerns speculation and possible, but not known, explanations for the hiatus. As HRWiki-space material, this is fine stuff, but it does not belong in the article space. Heimstern Läufer 23:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What if we combine it with Homestar Runner (body of work)? That seems like a good fit. Tenerence Love  00:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No. That's a horrible fit. That page is about the entire homestar runner content. This page is about lack of content. Please no. — Defender1031*Talk 08:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Do not delete! i need to know when homestar is off!
Keep I like this page and to super fans, this page is important to chronicles the departure from their hay-day. I R F 15:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely like to keep this page, because I check it every now and then to see if there's any information about when/if the current hiatus might ever be over. I know that it's not often that we come across solid facts regarding this, but the things currently discussed in the article (or at least in the 2010-2012 section) are things that we do know for certain. There needs to be a place where this information can be presented to fans who are wondering where Homestar went. Plus, since the hiatus is kinda the main thing happening with the H*R site now, I'd say that makes this page very relevant and important.--.Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 07:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] This is Halloween, this is Halloween

May I request that the "No Halloween toon" thing not be added until Tuesday? When the website updated, it almost always updated on Monday. Thus, we're more likely to get a Halloween toon tomorrow than today, if you ask me. Keep on tranglin'. --Jay (Talk) 20:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. We will wait until then, just for you. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] May 24?

This page says that the sbemail hiatus is still ongoing as of 5/24/11. That's TOMORROW. Just curious, but is this wiki entirely run on GMT/UTC? --Raddaluigi 00:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) --SIDE NOTE: The bottom of the page says it was last modified in April. Weird.

That's correct. Release dates of cartoons are UTC-5 (UTC-4 during DST) b/c that's what time zone TBC live in (which is rarely important, but it has had some significance). but otherwise, the dates are just like your timestamp. And about the last modified date: there is a CURRENTDATE template on the page to display whatever date the system thinks today is. The Knights Who Say Ni 01:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] New Page?

I think the 2010-2011 hiatus should get it's own page on the wiki. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, because the content for that hiatus is still too small, as evidence on this page. However, expansion is not required, as this page gets the job done. ColdReactive 15:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Uh...Article?

I really think that there should be a "2009-2011 hiatus" article. look at this! That would make a big article! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's mostly fan speculation. No. — Defender1031*Talk 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
*facepalm* Okay. What about removing the quotes, and adding more detail? That just might make it more interesting! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
How about adding whatever detail you're talking about to this page, of which what you're describing belongs as a section. Not as its own article. — Defender1031*Talk 16:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
*facepalm tree* Ok Fine. about adding it to "Acknowledged Update Delays" or "Timeline of Homestar Runner"?-- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 16:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything relevant to acknowledged update delays is already on that page, and there's already mention of it on timeline. Why are you trying so hard to find somewhere other than this page for the info? — Defender1031*Talk 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
*facepalm three* Fine. I'll stop now.--The Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 18:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC) (AKA Someone who's not Trogdor)

[edit] Rename?

I think there should be a title change on the 2011-2011 hiatus. it should be called "2011-2012 [The end of Homestar Runner?]" because many people speculate its Homestars end. Also, this isnt for just renaming one part, either. you can also suggest renaming another part. Just an idea.

Nope, some people think it's the end of Homestar Runner, but honestly I think they will make more cartoons someday. Now they have jobs and families to take care of. Tenerence Love  16:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Any claim that this is "the end of homestar runner" that doesn't come from TBC themselves is just speculation, and it doesn't matter how many people think it is or isn't the end. — Defender1031*Talk 16:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] What the deuce is happening?

I just checked the website, and it's down. Does this mean that everything's over? Is the hiatus now permanent? Someone please tell me what's up. -- 07:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, judging by [1], you may be right. It seems that this is the end for Homestar Runner. RickTommy (edits) 08:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A website being down for a short while doesn't mean it'll be down forever. --Jay (Talk) 10:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Could just be a hosting issue - the server is still responding to ping. --Ftr 10:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
See? She's back :D --Ftr 17:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this was affecting the local subtitles viewer. Is that supposed to happen? it probably is The Knights Who Say Ni 18:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup on Aisle Hiatuses

I know this depends on whether if the article has consensus of being kept, but the article currently is a mess and contains digs to TBC for not updating H*R much in years too boot. The article is arranged half-haphazardly from minor site hiatuses, then to sbemail hiatuses, and then back to major site hiatuses since email videography. It would help if we organize the article to only log each break TBC took as it happened (along with a reason why if available) without resorting to subtle insults to TBC like "they skipped (insert event here)" — Ngamer01 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Much of my problem with this page is that it seems to just be a soapbox for people to complain about the lack of new toons. I'd have to see the cleaned up product, but it's possible that if we stick to the basics, I won't mind the page so much (then again, I might still think it's a page about nothing.) — Defender1031*Talk 10:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article (and to think I was the one who added most of those complaints). And by the way, DeFender, what do you mean by "a page about nothing"? RickTommy (edits) 13:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I literally mean a page about nothing. It's a page about the fact that nothing has happened, and how long this nothing has been going on and whether the nothing is likely to end. See? Nothing. Either way, I mind it far less as a project page than as a mainspace page. — Defender1031*Talk 17:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This wasn't the cleaning I had in mind when I first raised the issue. I've got some ideas, but I lack the time to make and test any of 'em in the sandbox. — Ngamer01 17:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Link to a discussion

As I've said in the main discussion on this talk page, I linked to a Wiki discussion in the article to illustrate a point (i.e. how a small hiatus caused a long discussion). But I'd still like to know if that link to that discussion is appropriate. RickTommy (edits) 04:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that we shouldn't really be documenting fan reaction at all, I'd imagine that that link would be removed in any serious cleanup anyway. — Defender1031*Talk 11:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with keeping fan reaction separate, this article is already fully loaded with contempt towards TBC anyway. I did appreciate the link documenting the 2005 mini-hiatus for reference (as well as ironic value) but it could possibly be organized into a new external links section documenting discussion of respective hiatuses. We all wish the site were more active, or even just active, but it should be supported with objective facts about the site history. --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 2:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Links

The two twitter links for the latest hiatus are out of date/not working. Does anyone have a copy of the original posts or pictures?

[edit] Kind of a mess

Some of the sections on this article are too cluttered. Each section is a single paragraph, even though they've got a lot of information and dates crammed in there. I went ahead and tried to fix the section for the current hiatus. I removed stuff that felt redundant, like repeatedly mentioning the site skipping holidays after saying it hasn't updated since 2010. I tried not to leave out any actual information, though.

Also, I'm not sure how I feel about the caption "How 2011 can be summed up for Homestar Runner". I don't know if it feels mean-spirited or just kind of pouty, but I figured I should bring it up here. We shouldn't gripe too much, because TBC are busy guys and we need to respect that. -- 23:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Still 2011-present?

I think that just the surprise appearance at W00tstock doesn't mark the end of the hiatus. It's been a few months; and it hasn't updated yet. --Camwoodstock 15:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking about the date phrasing? Where you see "2011 - 2013" in that header, it actually says "2011 - {{CURRENTYEAR}}" in the coding so that it doesn't have to be updated every year. The page says that no new material has been added to the site in that time. The Knights Who Say Ni 16:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Still TBD?

This page has had a discussion arguing its deletion since approximately 2010, along with the {{tbd}} template. Since the hiatus is much more pronounced now than it was back then, is there any reason not to have this page? It's a pretty significant thing that's happening in the site right now. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:

Why is this page a "HRWiki:" page instead of just Hiatuses? -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
See #Delete?. Consensus was to move this to the project namespace as it's not really about H*R content, as are all articles in the main namespace, rather the lack thereof. — Defender1031*Talk 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but... this doesn't have anything to do with the wiki. This article is about a major event (and some minor ones) in Homestar Runner history, and I think it deserves an article (in the normal namespace). Just because it's about the lack of content, doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article. Anyways, that's just my opinion. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Take note of the date of the discussion. Back in 2010, the H*R hiatus was only starting and I guess everybody thought it was just going to be a phase for the site and it wouldn't literally go by for years without updates. - Catjaz63 01:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That's why we should rename it now. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to not have it in the main namespace. (I think that's what it's called.) What should we do? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Haldo? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You got your answer. It's still no, with no consensus to change the earlier decision. — Defender1031*Talk 20:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand why this is a HRWiki page. Unlike the rest of the pages in this namespace, this has nothing to do with the wiki. It's an extremely important event in Homestar Runner history. An event this important deserves to have a proper article. The fact that this page is about a lack of content doesn't change anything. Why does that make any difference anyway? This wiki isn't only about Homestar Runner content— it's about the entire body of work (which is currently on hiatus). And even if this wiki was only about content, that would only make a lack of content more notable. However, I am not saying this page is perfect. In fact, it could probably use a rewrite. But I definitely think it should be a namespace article (because, like I explained before, it's about the body of work instead of the wiki), and I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be. If you still disagree, I'd appreciate you explaining why. In conclusion, I say move. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 05:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I have nothing to add besides I agree with Gfd. I think this means the majority consensus of this discussion is pro-moving it into normal namespace, therefore it warrants an actual discussion. TheThin 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
First of all, consensus is not majority. It is overwhelming agreement. You don't have that. I continue to oppose this article's presence in the mainspace as it does not concern actual content. Rather, it was created because wiki users wanted information about what was going on with H*R. That's why it's in the HRWiki space: it's a service to our users, not something article-worthy. Heimstern Läufer 00:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this page is essentially our own log that we're keeping for ourselves (in fact, it could probably be reorganized a bit to be more explicitly that). While I wouldn't rule out its ever being moved to the mainspace, I don't think it currently merits full article status. — It's dot com 00:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, now I understand. Thanks! I never realized that this page wasn't supposed to be an actual article. You had me confused for a few years there... this page should really have a notice or something at the top that says "This is not supposed to be an actual wiki article, just a guide for our users" or something similar. Otherwise it could easily be mistaken as a real article (in the HRWiki namespace for no reason), as I thought it was. Anyway, my opinion hasn't really changed— I still think we should make a real page about the hiatus at some point, just not in its current condition. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
What does this page need before it gets made into an official article? It seems all right to me. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As before, I believe it should neither now nor ever be moved to the mainspace. My reasoning is unchanged from above. Heimstern Läufer 03:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
And I'll restate my agreement with Heimstern. Main namespace pages are for H*R content, not for the lack thereof. — Defender1031*Talk 03:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning is unchanged as well. Yes, this page isn't about content, but why does that matter? This wiki is about Homestar Runner in general, not exclusively its content. Matt Chapman is not Homestar Runner content, and he's about as relevant to the body of work as the hiatus is, and yet he has a page. Also, the main reason this page is in the HRWiki namespace is because, at the time, there wasn't enough information. Now that the hiatus has mostly been explained in various interviews and toons, this is no longer the case. When the discussion began, the page had three paragraphs, and it now has over a dozen. It clearly has enough information, so why is this still in the HRWiki namespace? Plus, it has been said that this article is only meant to be a service to users who wanted to learn more. But isn't that the point of all pages? The Sterrance page, for instance, is for fans who want to learn more about Sterrance. I see no major differences between this and a regular mainspace article. Not to mention, the hiatus is most likely the most important event in the history of Homestar Runner. If an event with this much historical significance doesn't deserve an article, why is there a page on The Strongs' Capsela? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Matt Chapman has made several appearances as himself within the H*R content (at least one of which was on the website). I'd say he's far more relevant to the body of work than the hiatus is. And it isn't that it isn't about H*R content, it's that it is about there not being any H*R content. In fact, Heimstern pointed out when the article was moved to the project namespace that "our article space is not a news service". Defender talked about how this is a page about nothing higher up on the talk page, where he also said it belongs in this namespace as oppose to the mainspace. I also think that saying that nothing happening is the most important thing that happened in the history of Homestar Runner is directly nonsensical. If you were writing a wiki on the history of the world, would you want an article about what didn't happen during the Dark Ages? The Knights Who Say Ni 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. I agree that our article space is not a news service, but this page isn't intended to be news. It's just documenting events, similar to this page, for example — I wouldn't consider that page to be news.
  2. As for "this is a page about nothing"... yes, it is. But this nothingness replaced something, and that makes it worth documenting. Just like the Lack of Visible Arms page — technically, a lack of arms is just nothing, but since normal humans have arms, an armless character is notable.
  3. And I think nothing happening is important to Homestar Runner, because like I said before, the standard is something happening. This nothingness started nearly a decade ago, and the website still hasn't completely recovered. Think of it this way. If a TV show was cancelled by the network, and revived several years later, wouldn't the show's wiki have a page on its cancellation? It's an important moment for the show that altered its content significantly.
  4. Also, The Dark Ages analogy isn't completely accurate. If all life vanished off the face of the Earth, and slowly returned over the next few decades, I would consider that a major event in the history of the world, and definitely make a page for it. Not a page about what didn't happen, but what did. It would be a page about the event itself, just like this page. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. This page documents breaks in the hiatus. But it documents multiple events, sort of like a news station would. That page documents a specific event — an interactive presentation that the Chaps did.
  2. I think the fact that the nothingness replaced something is the reason this page exists at all. Having it in this namespace doesn't mean it isn't being documented.
  3. I'm not saying that nothing happening isn't important, I'm just saying that it's not as important as something happening. For example, The Cheat pulling the Robot's plug is more important to the website because... that happened. If a TV show was cancelled by the network, and revived several years later, the show's wiki would have a brief mention of its cancellation, not have an entire page dedicated to it.
  4. If a lack of arms is technically nothing, then: If all life vanished off the face of the Earth, it technically couldn't return slowly over the next few decades. Now, if an asteroid hit the earth causing a mass extinction of the dinosaurs over the next few thousand years, but some manner of flora and fauna survived, we'd have something to write about. And what I meant with the dark ages analogy was: obviously something happened during that time, but we know far less about it than what happened before it and after it. Likewise, there's plenty we know about what happened before the hiatus, and plenty about the breaks in the hiatus, but there isn't much to say about the hiatus itself. The Knights Who Say Ni 01:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
All right, you guys have made some good points. While I don't necessarily 100% agree, I'd be fine leaving this page in the HRWiki namespace. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for bringing this up so many times. I'm sure everyone's sick of this discussion by now, and obviously this page being in the HRWiki namespace is far from the greatest issue our planet is facing, and I don't mean to make a big deal out of it (despite what the length of my reply would lead you to believe; I must've gotten a bit carried away). But no matter how many arguments I hear, it just never quite sits right with me. Could be a stubborn bias of mine, but I keep reading the disclaimer at the top of the page ("This is not intended to be an official wiki article, simply a service to our users who wish to know more about hiatuses within the body of work") and asking myself, what's the difference? Is not every article intended as a service to visitors who wish to know more about a certain subject (this in particular being one of the most relevant ones)? This is the only page in the HRWiki namespace written like a regular article, and linked to like a regular article, yet for (in my opinion, somewhat arbitrary) reasons isn't a regular article.

The page was originally moved to the HRWiki namespace because it consisted almost entirely of speculation. Not much was known about the hiatus, so a HRWiki page was created in an attempt to inform users of what little we knew (and suspected) at the time. This page was also planned to have more of a focus on the wiki's communication with the Brothers Chaps regarding the hiatus, but that didn't seem to end up happening, so as it stands, this HRWiki namespace page has nothing to do with the wiki itself. Since then, the hiatus has been explained at length in multiple interviews (and much of this information is compiled in the article), so not only is this page now entirely factual, but decently long as well. I'd say it more than meets the standards for a mainspace page.

One of the main arguments against this page being in the mainspace is that it's a page about nothing. I disagree — over the years, it had been established that toons would be released regularly. The hiatus changed that, and by definition any change is something. If the hiatus never happened, and this page was instead about the steady release of toons from 2009 to the present day, that would be a page about nothing. There's nothing to say about something simply continuing to happen. Any change must have a reason, and this page thoroughly documents those reasons. It's been argued that something as inconsequential as The Cheat pulling The Robot's plug is more relevant to H*R than the hiatus because one is something, and the other is nothing. Of these two events, which caused the most confusion, speculation, and discussion? Which altered the release of Homestar Runner content for over a decade? Which of these events do we know more about? The hiatus was the main point of discussion in the fandom for years. Doesn't something (because it is something) that notable deserve a proper article? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd say that distinction between "something" and "nothing" is ultimately arbitrary. Throughout this talk page, it keeps being brought up — "this shouldn't be a page because it's about a lack of content" — but never have I seen anyone clarify why this distinction is relevant in the first place. We have articles on all sorts of things, and I can't see why a page about a lack of content would be off limits. In fact, to me, the quality of this article serves as proof that such a page can work.

However, there are other valid arguments against my point, some I even agree with to some extent, but ultimately they're not enough to sway my opinion. One of these points is that there's not much to say about the hiatus — this complaint has mainly concerned previous revisions of the page, and with the inclusion of interview quotes and factual explanations, there's now plenty to say about it. It's also been said that this page is less about the hiatus itself and more about its breaks. This is something I can definitely understand, but the way I see it, the two subjects are inexorably linked. You can't tell a story and leave out the conclusion. Information such as how and when the hiatus stopped is extremely relevant to the hiatus itself. (However, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the last few paragraphs which merely list major updates since 2014 — now that irregular updates have been established as the norm, chronicling those updates could rightfully be described, in my opinion, as paragraphs about nothing. I also wouldn't be opposed to renaming the page something like "Hiatuses and Returns" to better reflect the scope.) It's also been stated that this article documents multiple events like a news station would, and that our article space is not a news service (the latter sentiment being one I agree with). This argument implies that this page is only useful during current events, and that if regular updates resume, this page will cease to be relevant. I disagree; I see this page as less of a news service and more of a historical document. The purpose of a knowledge base is to document things, and this page does exactly that. The information on this page will always be relevant to those who go looking for it, so it makes sense for this page to be in a more obvious location than in its current namespace. The mainspace is intended for pages related to H*R, and the hiatus certainly qualifies.

In conclusion, this doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd articulate my thoughts anyway, since I did a less-than-stellar job in previous years. (Also, this last suggestion isn't super important, but would it help to add some statistics to the page? Listing the longest hiatuses in some sort of table could make the page more documentative for those who don't see this page as article-worthy, and I don't recall this information being readily documented elsewhere. Just a thought.) Okay I'm done now. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 09:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Gfd pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. As it is now, this page is more than deserving of being named a proper main-namespace article. Keegster2 00:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Well-articulated. I think the earlier revisions were much more vague and informal, befitting the HRWiki: category, but after a decade-plus the scope and detail of information covered on this page is comparable to a "real" article like or Post-Flash Site Update, where the real-world focus means that there necessarily must be some editoralizing and explanation beyond simple regurgitation of facts. Like you say, having multiple interviews with TBC that directly comment on the break makes it very important to H*R and worthy of a main-space article.
However, I do have some concerns about the structure of the page as it is now:
  • The intro section has gaps in updating that, by comparison, are hardly remarkable. No Toon hiatus lasted over 50 days which pale in comparison to the rest of the article.
  • The pause in sbemails largely coincides with the overall hiatus, it is a little confusing to equate "they focused on other toons for nine months" with "they stopped updating the site for several years". This coverage may be better suited for the Strong Bad Email article (lede, fun facts, new section?).
  • There are a lot of redundant bits like "In [x] 2014 interview, Matt said he wanted to make a toon in the next 4-6 months" and then "in 2015 they made a new toon". The article could use some cleanup to cut down on this sort of thing.
  • As you mention, scope creep starts to set in as the article covers years post-2015. Obviously fewer things happened in 2017 when compared to 2007, but the stubby paragraphs aren't quite pleasing to read. To be frank, I don't think the site will ever return to the mid-00s pace of a weekly toon — unlike the article's assertion that the site "has still been on hiatus" — at some point this page stops being "hiatus coverage" and instead "describing the new normal".
Perhaps this page is maintained, while a main-space article becomes a truncated version that stops around 2015. Something like "2010s hiatus" may be a good compromise - I've put together a rough version of this in the sandbox. -- Bleu Ninja 02:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Another quick "for" argument - having an article that can be linked to from pages would be useful. April Fool 2014 and sbemail 206 already link here, Weekly Fanstuff (et al) awkwardly refer to "late 2009" and "2014", Which Ween Costumes? could benefit from a link. The 2010s hiatus has clearly been referred to several times within the body of work. -- Bleu Ninja 02:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I like your article draft, but I'm not sure how much good splitting up the page would do. I imagine that would create a lot of redundancy, especially if the only major difference between the HRWiki and mainspace pages is the slightly narrower scope (including the removal of information already documented elsewhere, which doesn't really need to be preserved here in my opinion). Speaking of the narrower scope, that's another thing I'm unsure about — while the earlier update gaps are frequently exceeded nowadays, they were unusual for the time, and I think that makes them worth noting. And maybe this is just me, but I like how the intro sections provide a contrast with the rest of the article. Like, "remember when a month without updates was a big deal?". As for sbemail hiatuses, however, I agree that those don't quite fit here. All of them happened either when the site was updated regularly (in which case it's not the same type of hiatus this page otherwise documents), or during the overall hiatus (which is already documented, creating overlap between sections). I think any hiatus of an individual toon category should be documented on its own page — somehow I feel like information regarding the sbemail hiatus would be more relevant on the Strong Bad Email page than here. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
You make good points. The post-2015 "H* updates 20XX" articles really do a better job than the trickling paragraphs on this article, like you say splitting isn't a better approach than readjusting and renaming. Updated the sandbox version with the minor hiatuses; I think the prose for that section is more confusing than helpful (in addition to "the longest hiatus!" record-keeping when differences are <2 wks) so I shifted to bullets (the major hiatus section works better as paragraphs, though). -- Bleu Ninja 09:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Yep, I think it's just about perfect now. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

[edit] 2010-2013

I think it started after Which Ween Costumes? and lasted until 2014.

Personal tools