Talk:More Fan Costumes

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] WTH?

What is with More Fan Costumes? It's not comming up at all. --Image:Skunklogo.gif(U)(T)(C) 01:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They must have taken it off the site: The flash file's gone. --Color Printer 01:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, it's still working for me. —AbdiViklas 01:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You've probably got it cashed. I wish they'd hurry, I gotta go out in 40 minutes. Thunderbird 01:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. 20XGlitch(Fanstuff Wiki User)

It works for me--Not signed in'd!

I'm not getting anything.

Are you using the links in the article? —BazookaJoe 02:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes

Not working for me either. And please get an account, mr. annonomousman. — talk Bubsty edits 03:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's not working! The good times are over! Anyway, I tried clearing my caches and it still didn't help, although it did get the link to appear on the main page (but the swf is just as 404'd as ever.) Rocketlex 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Works now! — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Under the Table and Editing

Are we going to give Fan Costume Commentary the same table treatment? I like it, but the two should be handled the same way. —AbdiViklas 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I would do it myself, but my crappy computer won't let me upload images. *sigh* *sniff*. — talk Bubsty edits 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
VC in the place, gonna rock your face! Don't worry, I have come to the rescue. Check out my masterpiece!. That's right, I did that all! Me! By myself! I rule! I rule Hyrule! Hey, that rhymes! Oh well, who cares? I did it all! --VolatileChemical 06:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice work, VC! See the appropriate comment I left on your talk page. —THE PAPER PREEEOW 06:50

[edit] Pictures

I just uploaded all the pics from number 2 on. They are all under the name Morefancostumes2, Morefancostumes3, Morefancostumes4, Morefancostumes5, Morefancostumes6, Morefancostumes7, and so on. I would put them in myself, but I don't understand the format. -- DBK! 03:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, you missed a couple, as I discovered when I tried to add them... --Jay (Talk) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
If you look at recent changes, they are all there. You just have to scroll down a little. -- DBK! 03:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Guess again. You missed the two where the piñata is about to be hit, and after it's hit. --Jay (Talk) 03:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the "Guess again" is completely unneccessary and sounds incredibly obnoxious. Thx.
Oh... sorry. I am sick, so cut me some slack. I'll upload them though. -- DBK! 03:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There you go, Jay. Sorry about that. -- DBK! 03:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

We appreciate you uploading those images, DBK. However, I had to recapture them due to the large size and pixelated compression artifacts that resulted. Apparently I'm just a perfectionist through and through. Thanks for your efforts nevertheless! —THE PAPER PREEEOW 06:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Having these pictures on the wiki is a clear copyright violation. They need to be removed. TBC have permission to use them, we do not. - Dr Haggis - Talk 19:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean just because they depict fans? Or because they constitute the bulk of the H*R page? If it's the latter, I have been saying this for a while now. In addition, we have a collection of Weekly Fanstuff. The answer to all these questions would have an effect on Fan Costume Commentary, as well. — It's dot com 19:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree It's dot com. I'd argue that we can leave the Weekly Fanstuff ones, since those are no longer accessible from the site, but I agree with you on Where My Hat Is At?, Original Book, and the two Fan Costumes articles. In fact, the previous version of the Fan Costume Commentary article worked very well. -- Tom 19:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Would the Strumstar Hammer article fit into this too? --DorianGray
I say yes; I further argue that that page doesn't need to exist at all, since it's simply taking a segment of kid's book and giving it its own page. —AbdiViklas 02:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Although the original arguement holds ground here, the fact that it's only a segment of an email doesn't really matter, as we have pages for small single-email things all over the place. - Joshua 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

From the Legal page:

Submissions
Any e-mails, notes, message/bulletin board/forum postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts or other material submitted will become the property of H*R throughout the universe. H*R shall be entitled, consistent with our policies regarding privacy, to use the material or any of its elements for any type of use forever, including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised. When you submit material to H*R's web site, you agree that H*R has the right to publish or otherwise use the material or any of its elements for any type of use, including promotional and advertising purposes, subject to H*R's policies regarding privacy.

I'm not exactly sure what this means for us, but I do think we may need to take these pictures down. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 20:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, but how are having pictures here any different than having pictures for everything else? Isn't every single frame in a cartoon copywrited? - Joshua 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, TBC know and approve of this wiki's existance, while we've done things like this for a long time. Don't you think if TBC were going to take legal action, they would already have? - Joshua
Screenshots are deemed fair use. See Template:web-screenshot. Of course, we can't just take screenshots of every frame of a toon, because that wouldn't be fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. -- Tom 20:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is all copyrighted. We skirt the issue by only using a frame or two from each toon as a representative example, to use in our "encyclopedia". But when we reproduce nearly the entire work, as on the pages listed on Tom's post up there, I think we've definitely crossed the line. Our site is to supplement H*R. As long as we do that, I think TBC will see us as benefiting them. But when we start trying to replace their site, I think we could get in trouble. The last thing we would want to do would be to make them mad. Why give them a reason to want to take legal action? — It's dot com 20:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Very good It's dot com.
In regards to our regular screenshots, not the images questioned in this article or similar articles, I believe we can rely on the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law [1] wherein as long as we take into consideration
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
for our purposes (such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research), is not an infringement of copyright.
Anyway, read the whole fair use article and tell me what you think. Oh, and this FAQ might help as well. -- Tom 20:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think points 3 and 4 apply here. We are reproducing nearly the entire work. The only thing missing is the sound, but even that is transcribed. To experience these pages, you do not even need to go to H*R.com, which means you're probably not going to the H*R store, either. — It's dot com 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand. Does this mean we need to take down all mirrors? (except for content no longer on the site) - Joshua 20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Where do we have mirrors posted for stuff that is on the site? — It's dot com
Marshmallow's Last Stand and A Jumping Jack Contest. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
MLS and JJC aren't on the site, though. Also, I agree with the whole thing. To quote Joel from the Bonus Stage episode 'The NYE', "This is not fair use!" --DorianGray
Whoops. I thought Dot Com said Where we used them when they weren't on the site. Yeah, those are one of the few exceptions to the rule. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, we don't, but we link to sites that do. - Joshua 21:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
But where do we link to mirror sites for things you can find on the official site? — It's dot com
We don't. But we support these copyright-infringing sites by drawing traffic to them. But if that doesn't matter, I don't care. - Joshua
If it is not fair use to have all of the pictures, we can at least keep some of them to make the page still look nice, don't you think? --Stux 05:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
We've got one. It's right up there at the top. — It's dot com 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

After several weeks, I feel that anyone who was going to comment in this discussion would already have done so, so I finally took action. I have reverted the changes to the original costumes page, and on this page and the two early work books, I have replaced the images with a place to describe the image (and on this page, I actually wrote the descriptions). — It's dot com 05:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why I missed this entire discussion is beyond me, but I hope it's not too late for my $0.02 (or rather $2.00). I see that there is one picture on each page. I think the page would look nicer if there's at least 2 or 3 per page, giving a better idea of what the thing looks like. It just looks... lacking without the pics. Actually I *loved* the table format it had... why can't it stay that way? I know, I know, the right format now is the transcript. I was also thinking, we could potentially just provide poor facimiles of the images (say 50x50 thumbnails) and it would still constitute as fair use following the rules above I believe. (We're also not providing a copy of the sound, but I know that we'd rather be safe in Copyright rather than be treading thin lines). It's just that transcript alone seems... lacking. At best. --Stux 06:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, to counter my own argument: if the pictures hadn't been there in the first place, I wouldn't be complaining. But still :) --Stux 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
On a page like this, where the original content is nothing but still images, I think we need to draw a clear line that one screenshot is all we use. Even on toons, one should be the limit, unless we are using a screenshot to illustrate a point (such as The Cheat's head exploding, for example). A screenshot for its own sake is the very thing the copyright laws are in place to prevent. — It's dot com 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I briefly browsed through the page provided above and found that:
The Committee has examined the use of excerpts from copyrighted works in the art work of calligraphers. The committee believes that a single copy reproduction of an excerpt from a copyrighted work by a calligrapher for a single client does not represent an infringement of copyright.
This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, i just thought it would be interesting to post (and would make me sound smart). *Sigh* You are quite right, the spirit of the copyright law and guidelines are quite strict about what level of reproduction is provided. (We could ask for permission... *grin*.) Anyway, it's just sad it don't look as good. I could draw stick figures to represent the pictures and post that. --Stux 06:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You're right, that does have no bearing on the conversation; if anything, it would mean that someone could knit an actual property of ones sampler without infringing, or write "Each Day We Die A Little More" in gorgeous calligraphy and frame it (I'd like to see that!). But, as much as I appreciate any discussion of aesthetics, I guess it's my duty to bring up, um, what we're doing here in the first place. The purpose of HRWiki is to be an annotational resource to the real site, a sort of study aid. Yes, there's no harm in beautifying it within the bounds of its function, but its raison d'être is ultimately utilitarian rather than artistic. Readers Digest version: It's a wiki, not a flower arrangement! :) —AbdiViklas 06:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*whines* But I like flower arrangements!!! ;) And people do too! I mean, I'd rather read the encyclopedia britannica in nice fine paper with great print, than rather read it all muddy and dirty and written on a paper towel (I'm not trying to make any allussions). But just in general, nice is good. If given the paper towel version only, then I'd take it. I like shiny things and I'm not afraid to admit it. Oh man! I wish I knew calligraphy, having the lyrics to the sad song in calligraphy would be awesome! --Stux 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. All instances of the images have been delorted. Let's pretend none of this ever happened. Everything is fine, nothing is ruined. ;) —THE PAPER PREEEOW 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For all us "Unable To See"ers

Would it be possible for the Wiki, at least until this whole deal is sorted out, to have a limk to a mirror of this toon? It would only have to be temporary, and it would really help people like me who, try as we might, just can't see the dang thing. (Sorry if this type of thing is frowned upon at the wiki. I'm new...) Rocketlex 05:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, Rocketlex. For now, you can access this feature (the Flash file) at the following mirror: [2] Hope that helps! —THE PAPER PREEEOW 05:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a bunch! That was great! Rocketlex 05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Some New Hotness

You know, I always thought that people who watched this webtoon were like me; single skinny computer nerds with too much free time on their hands. However, the Hot Homestar costume gives me hope for the future. Please, if you're a hot girl, stand up and be counted. Then send me your phone number, measurements and a picture of you in the Hot Homestar outfit. -JesseLangham

Same for hot guys, but in a SB costume, and send it to me. --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)
The hot ones might watch H*R but they don't come to the wiki, can't even spell wiki. I R F 21:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know that 1. I don't exist and 2. I'm not hot. :p Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 23:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm a girl, but I'm seriously NOT hot. At all. Actually, more people are into Homestar than you might think. Not hot

Is this discussion really necessary? Maybe it could be on the forums, but I don't think it's relevant to the Wiki, and implying that people are "hot" and "not hot" could offend people. Heimstern Läufer 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Second. And Kiwi, if you're between the ages of 13 and 19, chances are you're more attractive than you think. As a middle school teacher, it saddens me first of all that students' physical appearance is the number 1 determiner of their self image, and secondly that they consistently form such negative estimations of it. I don't think I've ever known anyone under 30 with an overinflated sense of their own appearance; that tends to come only after male pattern balding. —AbdiViklas 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yah, sadly I'm the stereotype Jesse gave- single, skinny, nothing (if you catch my drift;I AM female),computer nerd, and WAY too much time on my hands since there's no Auxillary in our school's band anymore.--אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)PS-That is probably an over-inflation, would you like to see a photo?

I shoulda sent mine in cuz I am teh hotness. Seriously though, if this is so popular a topic, go to the Forum and make a new thread there. Or you could move it to my user talk for all I care. It's just that, discussion is for... like... discussion. Even though I'm being a hypocrite by posting that link. Shhh. ;) -Jenny 07:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hotness 1.5

Hubba-wha? Is the girl on the right of the Hot Homestar picture dressed up as something, or just some random hot girl? --Annony Etc.

I don't think she's in a Homestar Runner costume. But if she was, she'd probably be Hot Girl Number 37. -- Tom 00:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Same kid as in fanstuff?

The "baby bursting out of The Cheat" is constantly described as having had appeared in the Weekly Fanstuff... but it's CLEARLY not the same picture (just look at them to confirm that) and I'm not even sure it's the same kid. Even if it is the same kid, can we really say that for certain? Thoughts? --Jay (Talk) 03:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to me, it clearly is. As far as I know, they don't make commercial Cheat costumes, and the costume sure looks like the same one to me. It's the one on the left, of course. With the chef-like hat. The kid's just kneeling in the Fanstuff pic. And costumes like that always has little hand holes that you can pull over your hand. I think it is the same one. --DorianGray
I know it's supposed to be the one on the left. I didn't say that it's clearly not the same kid (it very well could be), I said that it's clearly not the same picture. --Jay (Talk) 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, not the same pic. But it's the same costume and kid, that's all I'm trying to say. It's just a different shot. --DorianGray
Maybe. But can we say that for certain? --Jay (Talk) 03:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's more likely than not, I think. I know when I take pictures of costumes and things, I take more than one shot and pose. --DorianGray
But this is kinda falling into the realm of speculation now, and speculation isn't really favored on Wikis, I'm afraid (well, there are times... blasted Family Guy nonsense...) --Jay (Talk) 03:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The baby looks a little different, but I think that costume is the same costume. The chest hair thingy on the front, the spots that we can see, the hat are all the same. And since these things are one-of-a-kind homemade originals, I'd think it's the same kid. -- Tom 03:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we can be certain it's the same costume. If not, there are two identical ones. See the chin tuft and everything else mentioned above. If anything, it's not the same baby, but there's no reason to think that. And looking closely, it certainly could be the same baby. The one in Fanstuff appears rosier, but the whole photo has more red tone than the Fan Costume one (maybe doctored). If it's not the same kid, we're forced into the extreme speculations that someone photographed two babies in the same costume, or that identical costumes were created. Occam's razor. —AbdiViklas 03:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... perhaps, but I'm still skeptical. Maybe due to the poor picture quality of this page's baby, but it just looks like there's some difference in the material or a few spots (the few we can confirm between the two.) If we're going to keep it, can we at least change the wording? --Jay (Talk) 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, comparing the better version on the website instead of this site, the costume does look a lot closer (though the Fanstuff one is still darker and redder as previously mentioned.) --Jay (Talk) 04:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Weird. The costume looks very similar, but the kid looks very different. Great, now I'm confused... - Joshua 04:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's the same kid. The costume is identical; the spots look the same... the folds of the hat look the same. And when you color correct one of the photos to match the other one, even the color of the face looks the same. — It's dot com 04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Did you have to use the version on this site to confirm that, on the More Fan Costumes side? The fuzziness of it makes it look like there are more dots than there really are. Anyway, okay, I'll grant that they're nearly identical if not identical. I think we should still word it to make sure we're not implying that it's the same picture. --Jay (Talk) 04:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Take into account also the difference in expression. When the baby grins, all that baby fat makes for chubbier cheeks. Find a holy-crap-adorable baby and try it at home! (And again, I think the Fanstuff shot has been color-enhanced, possibly just to "normalize" the color balance of the three shots. And personally, I don't think the fact ever implied that it was the same photograph; I suppose we could say something like "a different picture of the baby in the The Cheat costume appeared...". (Whoa—ellipsis and punctuation in/out issues!) —AbdiViklas 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huskiness

Personally, I think the reason Strong Bad refers to "his" head as husky is because the pinata is so large, so I don't think he's actually referring to his own physical head when he says "husky." (Similar to how, in the first picture, he says he's stretching out his head, for a picture where his head is slightly elongated.) Spell4yr 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad actually DOES refer to his own head as "husky" in modeling once he realizes that having a husky head may have associated perks. Anyway, "husky" in reference to heads isn't exactly common. --Jay (Talk) 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not what the fact says, though. And I still contend that he's personifying the costumes, at most, but not referring to himself. I'm not denying that the fact is valid, I just think it needs some rewording. Spell4yr 04:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Boy, is it "Shoot Down Dorian's References Night"? Nah, just kidding... =3 You could be right. You probably are. I dunno. But that was the first thing that came to mind when I heard it. --DorianGray
Different people making the shooting down attempt. I think this one is wholly valid. --Jay (Talk) 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict'd!) Oh, sorry, didn't know it was yours. :-) Seriously, I guess it's fine, though it should be slightly reworded since he seems to be referring to his pinata head as husky, not his own. But I didn't mean any harm. THIS time. ;-) Spell4yr 04:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Reword away. I don't mind. Sometimes I have trouble wording things the way I mean them to sound. --DorianGray
I reworded it just because I felt that this was the easier of the two to resolve. Work for everyone? --Jay (Talk) 04:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I like it. It makes a little more sense too, I think. --DorianGray
I like it. (Attempt 5 to post a concession sentence; been edit conflict'd every time so far.) It's better than what I had tried posting during an edit conflict, which was good as I think I ended up liking Dorian's original better than what I tried to change it to. So, assuming no more edit conflicts, I'll leave this issue be. Spell4yr 04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aww homestar babies.

in the image, what does the strong bad baby have in his hands?

I'd imagine it's some sort of candy containing and carrying device. -- Tom 05:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closed STUFF

[edit] Buffalo Teriyaki

The mention of "teriyaki chicken" in connection with Trogdor's beefy arm is similar to another chicken-related comment in the first Fan Costume Commentary, in which Strong Bad says that fans carelessly "turned it into a buffalo wing."

Posted on: 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Closed: 16:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

VERDICT: This item was declined, 13–7. The votes and arguments have been moved to HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/More Fan Costumes.

[edit] Pantyhose Worms

Should there be a note about Strong Bad's "pantyhose worm" comments being a reference to those cheap cop-out costumes of Twi'leks and the like, wherein they use pantyhose to simulate the lekku (brain tails)? Or am I the only one who thinks that this might be a reference? - Point7Q 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd referance?

In the last costume w/the hot girls, do you think how Homestar treated SB is another referance to gayness? Either way, its feeding the fangirls.

-Alex H.

[edit] Exploding head?

It used to be that SB said "my brain is about to explode!" and not "my brain is splitting in half!" Maybe this should be added under Fun Facts?

[edit] Beanie cap!

I noticed an old edit which was removed as speculation that said that the dog may belong to the girls in the last picture. It cited the star shirt, and more importantly, the propeller cap. Upon inspection, I noticed--and I think it's pretty clear--that the hat which the dog is wearing is the very same hat that the girl is wearing. Obviously, it was mass-produced somewhere, and so there must be more than one hat of that kind, but I think it's more than a coincidence. I didn't do any research on chocolate lab size so I could figure out the measurements of his t-shirt and compare it to the girl's star shirt, but I imagine doing so would lend this argument more credence. Could we perhaps re-add that remark with a "possibly" in it, or just vagueness? Mayhaps could read,

  • The dog may belong to the girl in the last photo, as its beanie cap (and star shirt) is(are) identical to the one(s) she is wearing.

I feel like this could use some discussion before an add, though, so I won't be bold right now. --Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Gnome Strike! HUGE stuff to follow, please weads it all?

Crazy ol' Onamuji somethetimes decides to gnome so thoroughly that he'll actually go through A PAGE'S ENTIRE HISTORY looking at edits. You might think this silly, but here's my reasonin'. Due to the nature of a wiki, and also humans, sometimes edits will go missed. Let's say, for example, that someone makes an edit which is just plain silly, and has actually been removed before. If this edit is lost in the Recent changes page, it may remain for a long, long time. This was majorly noticable to me in my browsing; a quick glance at the history page, when expanded to show 500, shows that more than half of this page's edit history took place within one month of the page's creation, even though nearly four years have passed.
Another human problem is when our concepts of respect for hierarchy are stretched to the point of being illogical. Now, I mean no offense to the sysops here, but occasionally, all of us get tired from staying up too late and we make bad edits. Honestly, I've seen some terribly poor edits by sysops from time to time, and sometimes, they simply get left the way they are because of the false logic, "oh, s/he's a sysop, can't fiddle with that." I really want to underline that I'm not trying to undermine the sysop system here. Very nearly every edit I've ever seen made by youse guys has been in the best interest of the Wiki. There are just the occasional...let's call 'em stnanks.

So, I've compiled my various edit explanations together and will be submitting them basically all at once here, to save the edit review box from overload torture. Here go Pom-Pom! I mean, Onamuji.

  • This addition to the mollusk explanation once existed:
  • It is worth noting that one type of mollusk, the octopus (which lacks such a shell), has flexible arms which are often erroneously referred to as tentacles that it occasionally uses to pry open shelled mollusks to feed on them.
It was removed without any reason given. Now, I think it's worded a bit sillily in a silly manner—who the crap calls octopus arms something besides tentacles?—but otherwise, it's a valid point. I'm re-adding it here.
  • The "Aught Five" reference was added and removed twice in the first month following the toon's release, and was then re-added about six months later. I would have to say that most everyone here would agree that it's not a reference; using "Aught X" is not referring to a specific thing which was pweviously said on the site, it's just using the "Aught X" format. Thusly, I'm removing it again. Now, if someone were to make an Aught X page, and compile all instances, it would necessitate a link here. I'm not suggesting someone do so, and in fact, I think it'd be pretty silly unless there are at least five uses of the phrasing. I can only think of maybe three, should we count DVD commentary. (Is it ever in DVD commentary? Maybe not. I dunno.)
  • Simple gnoming/rewording on the severed head inside ref.
  • The RWR section once referred to China Express, alongside Spencer Gifts; it was removed for being "obvious." I am re-adding it here, with modifications, for a few reasons: firstly, the major mall chain is Panda Express, not China Express. China Express, in fact, is not a chain, and is a name which can be found on innumerable independent Chinese restaurants across the U.S. It is therefore possible that SB is referring to a specific mall restaurant named China Express which TBC know of or frequent, just as Homsar's sign mentioned the Georgia restaurant Merch Masala in Weclome Back. It's also possible that TBC just misremembered the name; I personally have had conversations which went something like, "What's that place called? China Express? Panda Express?" Secondly, and much more importantly, I think it is never safe to assume that anything RWR-related in the Homestar universe is "obvious." Homestar and crew have a very strong fanbase in Europe and worldwide, and to my knowledge, most of the world doesn't have mall food courts or American Chinese food as we do in the U.S. Certainly, these things are at least not as widespread or common around the world. For the few actual Chinese viewers of Homestar, it probably wouldn't make any sense at all. I think it safe to assume that a sizable portion of Wiki viewers might be curious as to what China Express is, having perhaps thought of the airline, and they deserve the explanation. (I don't think this is really explaining any joke, is it? It's just explaining a thing.)
If anyone can think of a clearer wording of the RWR than the one I placed in the page, please do so. I couldn't get it quite right.
  • Lastly, simple Fast Forward add of my own.

Now, since I know all of you skimmed that, shame on you! Go back and read it! My apologies for wasting five to ten minutes of your life, though. —Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Onamuji, that was amazing. although i do admit that the last paragraph was the first thing i read, that was definitely worth my time and consideration DELETED! i mean: whoa, we've got a breakthrough! you get a gold star. i actually just reverted something on the Place ya bets! page that had been there ever since about the third day of the page's existence. The Knights Who Say Ni 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aught?

In the page title "The Ween Aught Five" the word Aught what does that word mean? Am I the only one who doesn't know what that word means? Well, anyway I really don't know what that means. Can someone please tell me what Aught means. C-Son-L Sweaters 19:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It means zero. — Defender1031*Talk 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools